NUCLEAR POWER: PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS, FUTURE CHALLENGES E. Gail de Planque Strategy Matters, Inc

NUCLEAR POWER:PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS,

FUTURE CHALLENGES

E. Gail de Planque

Strategy Matters, Inc

It’s difficult to make predictions,

It’s difficult to make predictions,

• especially about the future !

Ignalina – Lithuania

CURRENT SITUATION

• 438 plants provide 16% of the world’s electricity (6% of energy)

• Nuclear supplies ~ 35% of the EU (50% off peak)

• Nuclear supplies ~20 % of the US• Worldwide, 93 plants planned for 2016,

37 are under construction, 8 scheduled for operation in 2002

CURRENT SITUATION

• OF THE WORLD’S TOTAL ENERGY SUPPLY, ABOUT 75 PERCENT IS SUPPLIED BY FOSSIL FUELS ( ~ 6% is nuclear )_

Top Nuclear Generating Countries (2000)

753.9

395304.9

159.6119.6 103.5 78.3 72.4 68.7 54.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

US France Japan Germany Russia KoreaRP

UK Ukraine Canada Sweden

bill

ion

kilo

wat

t-h

ou

rs

Source: Platt’s World Nuclear Performance

Nuclear Industry’s Total Operation Experience in Reactor

Years (as of December 31, 2000)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

.

US

UK

Fra

nce

Japa

n

Rus

sian

Fed

.

Ger

man

y

Can

ada

Sw

eden

Ukr

aine

Spa

in

Indi

a

Bel

gium

Kor

ea R

P

Cze

ch &

Slo

vaki

a

Sw

itzer

land

Bul

garia

Fin

land

Hun

gary

Net

herla

nds

Arg

entin

a

Arm

enia

Sou

th A

frica

Pak

ista

n

Lith

uani

a

Chi

na

Slo

veni

a

Bra

zil

Mex

ico

Rom

ania

reac

tor

year

s

Total = 9,722 reactor years

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• SAFETY

Worldwide Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

1.9

1.4

2.22.2

3.12.7

3.83.7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1990 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per

cen

t

Worldwide Unplanned Automatic Scrams

0.70.6

0.9

1.11.0

1.71.8

0.7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1990 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Unplanned Automatic ScramsThe unplanned automatic scrams per 7,000 hours critical indicator tracks the median scram (automatic shutdown) rate for

approximately one year (7,000 hours) of operation. Unplanned automatic scrams result in thermal and hydraulic transients that affect plant systems. The scram rate has been significantly reduced since 1980. In 2000, 59 percent of

operating units had zero automatic scrams.

7.3

6

4.43.8

1.9

1.2 1.10.8 0.8

0 0 0 0

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 97 98 99 2000 Goal2000

scra

ms/

7,00

0 ho

urs

crit

ical

(m

edia

n va

lue)

Source: WANO 2000 Performance Indicators

Significant Events: Annual Industry Average (1985-2000)

2.37

1.61

0.81 0.86 0.8

0.440.27 0.29 0.25 0.2

0.12 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.030

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

Source: NUS

Significant Events (SEs) are those events that the NRC staff identifies for the PI Program as meeting one or more of the following criteria:

degradation of important safety equipment;a major transient or an unexpected plant response to a transient;degradation of fuel integrity, the primary coolant pressure boundary, or important associated structures;a reactor trip with complications;an unplanned release of radioactivity exceeding the technical specifications or regulations;operation outside the technical specification limits;other events considered significant

Yearly Severity Levels I, II & III Violations (1997- 2001)

Source: SCIENTECH *Violations through October 2001

113

38

1813 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*

Collective Radiation Exposure (PWRs)

The collective radiation exposure indicator monitors the effectiveness of personnel radiation exposure controls for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Low exposure indicates strong management attention to radiological protection. Worker exposure has been reduced significantly over the past decade. The 2000 values

continue to be better than the 2000 goals.

417

528

464

278 278 273

193

144 126 12482 98 82

110

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 97 98 99 2000 Goal2000

man

-rem

per

uni

t (m

edia

n va

lue)

Source: WANO 2000 Performance Indicators

Capacity Factor Performance vs Risk Levels (1992-2000)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Industry Avg. Capacity Factor

Relative Industry Average CDF (internal events)

Source: Safety Benefits of Risk Assessment at US Nuclear Power Plants, June 2001 (EPRI)

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• SAFETY

• OPERATIONS

Typical Scope of Supply (Korean Contracts)

• Westinghouse Newington-Mfg Equipment

– reactor vessel internals

– control rod drive mechanisms

– reactor coolant pumps

• Procured Equipment

– reactor coolant pump motors, hydraulics

– in-core, ex-core neutron detectors

– auxiliary equipment

• Nuclear I&C Equipment

• Control Rod Assemblies

• Engineering Design, Support

Worldwide Unit Capability Factor

84.5 85.977.2 77.6

81.5 81.7 82.6 84.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per

cen

t

US Nuclear Industry Is AchievingRecord Levels of Performance

(1980-2000)89.6

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Cap

acity

Fac

tor

(%)

All 103 Units

Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste (PWRs)

This indicator monitors the volume of solid radioactive waste processed per unit for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Minimizing radioactive waste reduces storage, transportation and disposal needs,

lessening the environmental impact of nuclear power. The 2000 values continue to be better than the 2000 goal.

500

360 358

198

12895 87

46 3618 21 22 20

45

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 97 98 99 2000 Goal2000

cubi

c m

eter

s of

sol

id r

adio

acti

ve w

aste

per

uni

t (m

edia

n va

lue)

Source: WANO 2000 Performance Indicators

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• SAFETY

• OPERATIONS

• ECONOMICS

Nuclear Share of US Electricity Generation (1973-2000)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

Source: EIA

Nuclear (bkWh) %1973 83.5 4.42000 753.9 19.8

US Electricity Production Costs(in constant 1999 cents/kWh)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Nuclear 1.83

Coal 2.07

Gas 3.52

Oil 3.18

Source: UDI for actual data, converted to 1999 dollars by NEI

Nuclear Plant Output:Growth During the 1990s

577

641674

728754

500

600

700

800

90 94 98 99 2000

Equivalent to 22 1,000-megawatt power plants

Satisfied approximately 22% of growth in U.S. electricity demand

Year

Bill

ion k

Wh

License Renewal: License Renewal: Unlocking Additional Unlocking Additional ValueValue Already filed

Hatch 1,2Turkey Point 3,4North Anna 1,2Surry 1,2Peach Bottom 2,3

2001Catawba 1,2McGuire 1,2

2002Point Beach 1,2St. Lucie 1,2SummerFort CalhounRobinson 2

2003Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2Browns Ferry 2,3CooperFarley 1,2Dresden 2,3Quad Cities 1,2

ApprovedCalvert Cliffs 1,2Oconee 1,2,3Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1

2004Brunswick 1, 2Beaver Valley 1,2PilgrimDavis-Besse2007Sequoyah 1,2

PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS

• SAFETY

• OPERATIONS

• ECONOMICS

• INFRASTRUCTURE

WANO OrganizationWANO Organization

Coordinating CenterCoordinating Center Regional CentersRegional Centers

LondonLondon

ParisParisMoscowMoscow

TokyoTokyo

AtlantaAtlanta

INFRASTRUCTURE

• WANO (operators)

• IAEA (UN)

• NEA (OECD)

• INRA (regulators)

• INLA (lawyers)

• INDUSTRY GROUPS

• PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

FUTURE SITUATION

• By 2050 - the world’s population is expected to grow to ~ 6-10 billion with the developing countries at ~ 4-8 billion

• If the per person world energy use reaches 1/3 that of the US today, the world use of energy will tripple

FUTURE CHALLENGES

FUTURE CHALLENGES

• TECHNICAL

• ECONOMIC

• INFRASTRUCTURAL

• SOCIAL AND POLITICAL

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Westinghouse View on Products for Future Markets

• Markets that are still regulated, majority of energy imported, and/or have limited sites (e.g., Asia)– Large advanced LWRs (e.g., APWR, APR1400) are a good fit

– Larger passive plants are also being evaluated

• Markets that are deregulated with pipeline natural gas as principal competition and/or where potential sites are plentiful, but may be limited by thermal aspects or grid infrastructure (e.g., US/UK)– Passive plant technology (e.g., AP600, AP1000)

– Small/modular designs with substantial shop fabrication (e.g., PBMR)

Argentina 1 692 China 8 6,420 Czech RP 1 912 Iran 2 2,111Japan 3 3,190 Korea RP 4 3,820 Romania 1 650 Russia 3 2,825

Slovak RP 2 776 Ukraine 4 3,800 TOTAL 29 25,196

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

World Nuclear Power Reactors

Under Construction (2000)Country Units Total

MWe

What Do Customers Want?

Large Plants

Small Plants

Innovative

Technology

Proven

Technology

The Westinghouse AP1000A Competitive Nuclear Option Available Today

ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

COSTCOST

COST ISSUES

• CONSTRUCTION COST

• CONSTRUCTION TIME

• OPERATING COSTS

• FUEL CYCLE COST

• REGULATORY COST

• LIABILITY

Nuclear Industry Power Uprates:1977-2001

(cumulative power capacity increases)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,0007

7

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

20

01

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Me

ga

wa

tts

Ga

ine

d

Approximate MWe MWt

Source: NRC (SECY-01-24 Power Uprate Application Reviews July 2001 updated through November 2001 by NEI)

Fuel as a Percent of Electric Power Industry

Production Costs (1999)

Source: UDI

73%

30% 24% 20%

27%

70% 76% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nuclear Coal Oil Gas

O&M Fuel

PRODUCTION COSTS ARE NOW LOWER THAN FOR

GAS, COAL AND OIL

INFRASTURCTURAL CHALLENGES

INFRASTRUCTURE

• WANO (operators)

• IAEA (UN)

• NEA (OECD)

• INRA (regulators)

• INLA (lawyers)

• INDUSTRY GROUPS

• PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

Peer Review HistoryCumulative

4 8 1524

38

62

84

112

137

161

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

IAEA

• DEVELOP NEW REACTOR REQUIREMENTS

• FOSTER GLOBAL STANDARDS

• IMPROVE SAFETY WORLDWIDE

• COMBAT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

• ADDRESS NUCLEAR TERRORISM

INRA

• FOSTER CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE AND RELIABLE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTS

INLA

• FOSTER CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE AND RELIABLE LEGAL ENVIRONMENTS

WORKFORCE (USA)

• ~ 75 % of DOE and national lab workers expected to retire within 5 years

• ~ 30 % of nuclear plant workers can retire within 5 years

• ratio of NRC workers over 60 to those under 30 is 5 to 1

WORKFORCE (USA) - POOL• NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

UNGRADUATES HAVE DECLINED FROM ~1800 TO ~600 IN 20 YEARS

• UNIVERSITY REACTORS HAVE DECLINED FROM 64 IN THE ‘70s TO 29

• 35 % OF UNIVERSITY LEVEL NUCLEAR FACULTY ARE OVER 60

• NAVY TRAINS ABOUT 1/3 LEVEL OF ‘80s

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHALLENGES

Positive Media Signals

GOVERNMENT POSITIVE• National Energy Policy - recommends

expansion of nuclear

• Congress supportive - significant funding for DOE and NRC

• Secretary of Energy - programs aimed at new build before 2010, and extensive support for innovative designs by 2030

• Southern Governor’s Association strongly endorses expansion

INDUSTRY POSITIVE

• Multi-utility coalition is exploring a joint venture for building several new plants

• Requests for early site approvals are expected as early as 2003

• Fed. Reserve Board Chairman has said nuclear is “an obvious alternative to coal in electric power generation.”

• Financial community thinks it possible

THE PUBLIC IS POSITIVE

• “Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, oppose or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the US ?”

• Bisconti and Richards

1983 Nov. 2000 Oct. 2001

FAVOR 49 % 58 % 65 %

OPPOSE 46 % 36 % 29 %

WE SHOULD KEEP THE OPTION TO BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER

PLANTS IN THE FUTURE

PERCENTAGREEING

Oct 99 July 01 Oct 6-8 01

60 74 72

WE SHOULD DEFINITELY BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

IN THE FUTURE Date Percent

Agreeing Oct. 99 42

Jan. 01 51

March 01 66

July 01 63

Oct. 6-8 01 59

ISSUES FAVORABLE TO NUCLEAR EXPANSION

• Cost (operation)

• Fuel diversity / energy independence

• No “greenhouse” emissions

CLIMATE SITUATION• “The seriousness of climate change is still

widely misunderstood. Climate influences the productivity of farms, forests, and fisheries, the geography of disease, the livability of cities in summer, damage from storms and floods, property damage from higher sea level, the cost of engineered environments, and even the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species. A few degrees in the average global temperature would entail highly disruptive alterations in climatic patterns.”

CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE

• Average temperature of the earth has risen ~0.8 degrees C in 100 years

• 15 of the 16 hottest years since 1860 have occurred since 1980

• 7 of the hottest years have occurred since 1990

• The last 50 years constituted the warmest half century in 6000 years

Life Cycle CO2 Emissionsfrom Sources of Electricity

Generation

5~3-6610161224 40

138188

246

0255075

100125150175200225250275

Coal Oil

Natura

l Gas

Solar

Win

d

Geo

ther

mal

Nuclea

r

Smal

l & M

ediu

m H

ydro

Fuel Equipment/Operation

g C

02

/ kW

h

Source: CRIEPI/Japan

ISSUES CHALLENGING NUCLEAR EXPANSION

• Cost (capitol)

• Proliferation concerns

• Waste / transportation

• Security

WASTE / TRANSPORTATION

• President Bush just recommended Yucca Mountain as a repository, but

• National Research Council and Harvard/University of Tokyo study suggests new thinking

• Over 3000 fuel shipments covering 1.6 million miles have been made safely with no release of radioactivity

SECURITY

• “Nuclear power plants are certainly far more capable of resisting an aircraft attack than any other civilian structure…. Nuclear power plants have long had defensive capabilities that far exceed those of other civilian infrastructure”

• Chairman Richard Meserve,

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SO WHAT IS THE BOTTOM

LINE ???

• “THE CHOICES WE MAKE ABOUT ENERGY . . . IN THE YEARS AHEAD WILL AFFECT ECONOMIC WELL-BEING, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD FOR MOST OF THE 21st CENTURY.”

• Prof. John Holdren, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government

SO, WHAT ROLE WILL NUCLEAR POWER PLAY IN THE FUTURE ?

FOR THE U.S., FOR THE WORLD?

It’s difficult to make predictions,

• especially about the future !

Koeberg – South Africa

Nuclear Industry Yearly Power Uprates (1977-2001)

(yearly power capacity increases)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

2001

Cu

mu

lativ

e M

egaw

atts

Gai

ned

Approximate MWe MWt

Source: NRC (SECY-01-24 Power Uprate Application Reviews July 2001 updated through November 2001 by NEI)

Nuclear Energy is Critical to America’s Energy Future

Extensive record of safety and production

Industry works continuously to improve

Environmentally sound

Most economical source of electricity

License Event Reports (1990-1999)

2119

19171834

14401294 1227

14771585

1238

814

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Source: NRC

Number of Unusual Events Reported to NRC (1989-2000)

151170

135

10392

66 63

4026

3418

197

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000Source: NRC

Note: A Notification of Unusual Event for power and non-power reactor licensees is a condition involving potential degradation of the level of plant safety that does not represent an immediate threat to public health and safety.

Nuclear Plant Efficiency at Record-High Levels

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.%