Dec 19 2005 - June 19 2007 Commission ENERGY 2030 The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the Commission Energy 2030 William D’haeseleer, K.U.Leuven Chair

Dec 19 2005 - June 19 2007Commission ENERGY 2030

The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the

Commission Energy 2030

William D’haeseleer, K.U.Leuven Chair CE2030

Dec 19 2005 – June 19 2007Commission ENERGY 2030

Objectives

«To provide the scientific and economic analyses necessary to evaluate Belgium’s options with

regard to the energy policy up to 2030»

…so as to assure an energy system that

- guarantees security of supply

- is environmentally friendly

- at affordable cost for society


Objectives

«To provide the scientific and economic analyses necessary to evaluate Belgium’s options with

regard to the energy policy up to 2030»

…so as to assure an energy system that

simultaneouslysimultaneously

- guarantees security of supply

- is environmentally friendly

- at affordable cost for society


Scenarios CE2030

Guided by GHG Effect policy


Scenarios CE2030

Two philosophies:

• 15% and 30% domestic reduction of energy-related CO2 in 2030 wrt 1990 (within Belgium w/o emission trading)

• European-wide reduction limit of 30% GHG in 2030 wrt 1990, with perfect emission trading scheme for all sectors


Domestic Alternative Scenarios

Eight scenarios

• 15% and 30% domestic reduction of energy-related CO2 in 2030 wrt 1990

• Each time with nuclear phase out on-off

• Each time with CCS and without


Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results

Carbon value Post-Kyoto -15%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2 3 4

Scenarios -15%

CO

2 va

lue

[E

UR

/to

n C

O2]

no nuc; w ith CCS

nuc allow ed; w ith CCS

no nuc; no CCS

nuc allow ed; no CCS



Carbon value Post-Kyoto -30%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

5 6 7 8

Scenarios -30%

CO

2 va

lue

[E

UR

/to

n C

O2]

no nuc; w ith CCS

nuc allow ed; w ith CCS

no nuc; no CCS

nuc allow ed; no CCS



Domestic CO2 reduction scenarios transparant, but unrealistic

30% domestic energy-related CO2 reduction is effectively IMPOSSIBLE

Realistic domestic Belgian CO2 reductions are ~ …15%...


Domestic Alternative ScenariosResults






European Alternative Scenarios

Two extra scenarios:

• European-wide reduction limit of 30% GHG in 2030 wrt 1990, with perfect emission trading scheme for all sectors

• Belgian nuclear phase out on-off

• No CCS assumed


European Alternative ScenariosResults

EU wide cost of Carbon Value (price of emission allowances):

- Without nuclear in Belgium ~ 200 €/ton

- With nuclear in Belgium ~ 190 €/ton





Limited reduction of CO2 in case of nuclear phase out means that marginal abatement cost is then much higher than in neighboring countries.

With nuclear allowed, a cheap CO2 reduction method is available in Belgium.



Consider same GHG commitment in Belgium as in EU;

i.e. 30% reduction in 2030 wrt 1990

- Not all to be reduced domestically,- But responsible for reduction abroad

via emission allowance purchase



Cost for Belgium ~ 15 – 20 G€, or

about 6-8% of GDP2000; 4-5% of GDP2030


Beyond the ScenariosReflections

Extension of networks: - for HV if off shore ~ 3800 MW ~ 700 M€ - for distribution grid adaptation ~ 2 G€ over 10 yr

Subsidies required for renewable expansion: - current 846 MW wind offshore planned ~ 6 G€ - next 3000 MW wind offshore ~ 21 G€ - 2000 MW wind onshore ~ 7 G€ - 1000 MW photovoltaic (PV) ~ 7.2 G€ - 1500 MW Biomass ~ 9.6 G€

50 G€ over 20 years, (or 1/5 GDP2000 or 1/10 GDP2030)


Beyond the ScenariosReflections

Security of supply

Import dependency on scale ~ 1-2 yr:

Up to 88-90% without nuclear in energy terms

Up to 95-97% in instantaneous power terms


Beyond the ScenariosReflections on Gas Dependence


Beyond the ScenariosReflections on Gas Dependence

Gas Demand for Electricity Generation


Beyond the Scenarios

Increasing Electricity Demand



Needed Investments for Electricity Generation








Nuclear Phase Out ?


The Nuclear Issue in Belgium

1. The phase out law

2. Cost of a nuclear phase out

3. Operational extension of current NPPs

4. New nuclear power plants

5. Nuclear liability


Nuclear Issue in Belgium - Intro

Often four elements are “introduced” together:

- “Nuclear technology is unacceptable (safety, waste,…)”

- “Operator NPPS makes windfall profits with depreciated NPPs”

- “The liberalized market ‘does not function’ ”- “All the profits of EBL go to Paris”


Nuclear Issue in Belgium - Intro

Often four elements are “introduced” together:

- “Nuclear technology is unacceptable (safety, waste,…)”

- “Operator NPPS makes windfall profits with depreciated NPPs”

- “The liberalized market ‘does not function’ ”- “All the profits of EBL go to Paris”

Items are independent of each other !


1. Nuclear phase out law

The factsThe facts

► Consequence of political deal summer 2000► Voted January 2003, Published Feb 28 2003► Ignores advice of the AMPERE Commission► No attempt to evaluate consequences► Explanatory Memorandum:

- full with “incorrect statements”

- recognizes conflict with post-Kyoto: Triptych approach

► Exceptionality Clause: “force majeure” for SoS


1. Nuclear phase out law

InterpretationInterpretation

► if nuclear power is unacceptable, why continue for > 20 y?

→ No rational basis !► No such thing as technical life time of systems;

only economic life time “operational life”► Nuclear phase out law can be changed or

mitigated► But nuclear phase out law has managed to

create uncertainty for future nuclear investments


2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out

- Phasing out nuclear power entails to throwing away a cheap means to reduce CO2



Cost for Belgium ~ 15000 – 20000 M€, or

about 6-8% of GDP2000; 4-5% of GDP2030




- Phasing out nuclear power will lead to higher electricity prices







- Phasing out nuclear power gives up concession fee to help support renewable sources





- Phasing out nuclear power gives up concession fee to help support renewable sources

- Phasing out nuclear power increases energy import dependency, with extra cost



- Postponing nuclear phase out allows growth of decommissioning fund by ~ 1 G€





- Postponing nuclear phase out allows growth of decommissioning fund by ~ 1 G€

- Postponing nuclear phase out allows negotiations with GdF/Suez to keep certain aspects of electricity generation Belgian



Compare to EU Commission Proposal

● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020




● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020

● For ETS sectors (incl power sector):

► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990)

►irrespective of country / location / type

►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020




● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020

● For ETS sectors (incl power sector):

► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990)

►irrespective of country / location / type

►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020

● Other sectors, for B: -15% GHG compared to 2005




● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020● For ETS sectors (incl power sector):

► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990)►irrespective of country / location / type►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020

● Other sectors, for B: -15% GHG compared to 2005● RES obligation B: 13% of final energy demand by

2020; ~ 25% electricity demand




The EU targets are very stringent for Belgium!

When “extrapolated” to 2030, these targets are not too different from the CE2030 targets:

- no burden sharing or Triptych approach for power sector !

- other sectors -15% domestically will require drastic reduction in energy demand

RES: very demanding: support will be “expensive”



Nuc Phase Out seems very Nuc Phase Out seems very expensiveexpensive;;

CE2030 recommends to CE2030 recommends to

““reconsider” nuclear issuereconsider” nuclear issue


3. Operational Extension of Current NPPs

- Operational extension same safety culture:- under strict safety rules & ALARA principles; - appropriate regulatory supervision;- maintenance according to intl standards & practices

- Waste management same rules:- volume minimization; - appropriate waste treatment;- continue R&D for final disposal- keep internalizing cost



- Proliferation issue same strict rules safeguards:- Supervised by IAEA, Euratom, FANC

- Terrorism protection- Abide by latest “security” rules - NPPs are impact resistant buildings


Nuclear Plant Security ZonesNuclear Plant Security ZonesOwner Controlled Area

Protected Area

Vital Area

Access Control Points

Protected Area Double Fence


Comparative Size of TargetsComparative Size of Targets

WTC 208’ wide1,353’ tall

Pentagon1,489’ wide (921’ per side)71’ tall

Spent Fuel Pool 80’ wide40’ tall

Containment Building130’ wide

160’ tall

Dry Casks10’ wide20’ tall(12 depicted)



- Proliferation issue same strict rules safeguards:- Supervised by IAEA, Euratom, FANC

- Terrorism protection- Abide by latest “security” rules - NPPs are impact resistant buildings

- Decommissioning funds- Need guarantee that funds will be available when

needed



- Negotiate concession fee with owners of NPPs

and recycle some money

- for support RES

- for DSM measures

- into economy (labor charges, ageing population, national debt, …)


Comment by a political party:

« D’haeseleer is een oplichter ! »


Comment by a political party:

« D’haeseleer is een op-licht-er ! »

Laat hij het licht schijnen ?


4. New Nuclear Power Plants

- CE2030 does not “advocate” new NPPs in B- But CE2030 does not exclude new NPPs- Authorities must set stable framework (explicit

compensation for later political phase out)- Private sector to invest in liberalized context- If subsidies (e.g., for SoS), then transparency- Reactor not FOAK; proven design (Gen III)- Siting following current practices; in collaboration

with local authorities


5. Nuclear Liability

- Conventions of Paris and Brussels- Current amounts:

- Nuc operator: 297.5 M€- Belgian State: 0 €- Participating countries convention: 163 M€

- Revision of Conventions of Paris and Brussels- New amounts:

- Nuc operator: > 700 M€- Where accident occurs: ∆ to cover 700 M€ < < 1200 M€- Participating countries convention:

∆ to cover 1200 M€ < < 1500 M€

Note: amounts based on Chernobyl accident; western LWRs much more safe as are Gen iii and Gen iv



General Recommendations

Belgium must keep a EU perspective; quick transposition of directives is called for

Need stable legislation & regulatory framework

Belgian energy responsibilities to be harmonized

Do not put all eggs in same basket; need diverse set of contributing elements

Belgium should prepare for a substantial post-Kyoto reduction (no ostrich attitude)


Concrete Recommendations

Do all that is reasonable for reducing energy demand

…start with EU directives quickly

…go perhaps beyond

Pass on energy prices to consumers



Should keep the nuclear option open:

…negotiate concession fee (Borssele scenario); amount to be negotiated; to be used for

“useful purposes”

… continued operation under strict safety rules

(regulators, IAEA, EURATOM, WANO…)



Majority standpoint:- operational extension not limited a priory; can remain operational as long as safe- new nuclear power plants possible; clear framework to be set by authorities

Minority standpoint (JP v Ypersele):- operational extension only 5 years- concession revenues to be spent preferentially on DSM and renewables- no new nuclear power plants

Basically a philosophically / ideologically different viewpoint



Renewable obligation (quota) best on supply; local production to be carefully considered via penalties

Off shore wind to be pursued

… reconsider earlier rejected sites

… develop far off-shore sites meticulously



Make commitment for one CCS pilot plant no later than 2030

Security of supply

… diversity of prim sources & technologies

… stable investment climate

… transmission & distribution networks



Liberalization of electricity & gas…stable regulatory framework…one wholesale NW-EUR region with sufficient cross border capacity; efficient & strict regulatory supervision…retail market access to be developed over time…vertical unbundling needed (grids outside, at least legally)…guarantee for B: golden share in Suez/GdF?



Research & development

…do preferentially in a EU framework

…R&D for energy efficiency

…off shore wind development

…systems integration

…one CCS plant by 2030

…nuclear-energy systems development

…energy-system model development



Sustained Strategic Watching Brief

…permanent follow up of recommendations

…supervised by independent core group

…statistics to be improved


Conclusions (1)

► A rational discussion on nuclear issue called for; emotional or confrontational discussions can be

- very expensive;

- detrimental for environment

- harmful for Security of Supply

► A balanced portfolio seems reasonable approach

► “Cheap” nuclear energy can support renewable expansion


Conclusions (2)

► Nuclear phase out should be reconsidered

► Timely decision, stable framework, and comprehensive policy requested for overall energy provision


Conclusions (3)

Call upon policy makerspolicy makers

to rely on facts and figures

►►set course for justified, set course for justified,

well balanced energy policywell balanced energy policy



Documents

Dec 19 2005 - June 19 2007 Commission ENERGY 2030 The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the Commission Energy 2030 William D’haeseleer, K.U.Leuven Chair