Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.%
