DOCSLIB.ORG

Electricity Market Reform Process in Determining the Viability of Investment in New Nuclear Power Stations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Electricity Market Reform Process in Determining the Viability of Investment in New Nuclear Power Stations Energy and Climate Change Committee Building New Nuclear: the Challenges Ahead Ref Organisation Page NUC 01 and NUC 01a Department of Energy and Climate Change 2, 27 NUC 02 and NUC 02a EDF Energy 29, 37 NUC 03 Nuclear Issues 39 NUC 04 University of Greenwich 41 NUC 05 Energy & Infrastructure Project Finance 48 NUC 06 James Lawton 58 NUC 07 Donald Miller 63 NUC 08 Institution of Mechanical Engineers 66 NUC 09 Office for Nuclear Regulation 73 NUC 10 Peter Mellor 77 NUC 11 Nuclear Industry Association 80 NUC 12 Civil Engineering Contractors Association 86 NUC 13 Cardiff University 91 NUC 14 The Institute of Physics 100 NUC 15 World Wildlife Fund Scotland 103 NUC 16 New Nuclear Local Government Association 111 NUC 17 Greenpeace 118 NUC 18 Sedgemoor District Council 124 NUC 19 Institution of Civil Engineers 131 NUC 20 Weinberg Foundation 134 NUC 21 The Royal Academy of Engineers 138 NUC 22 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 141 NUC 23 CITB Construction Skills 146 NUC 24 NuGeneration 152 NUC 25 Horizon Nuclear Power 159 NUC 26 Environment Agency 163 NUC 27 Supporters of Nuclear Energy 167 NUC 28 SSE 170 Written evidence submitted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (NUC 01) The Committee is aware of the significance of the electricity market reform process in determining the viability of investment in new nuclear power stations. What other factors contribute to investment decisions for new nuclear? Overview As with other low carbon technologies, investment in new nuclear plant involves high upfront capital costs with low operational costs which makes them particularly exposed to fluctuations in the price they can achieve for the electricity they generate. However, the sheer size of the investment and the complexity and associated risks of these projects means there is lower scope for new entrants in the short term. Financing first plant Analysis published by KMPG1 concluded that new nuclear investment in first plant will be funded against the balance sheet of existing development consortia members at least until the operational phase. This is because there are limited sources of external finance (with the exception of new consortia partners with existing nuclear experience) likely to come forward due to uncertainty and risk with first plant and in particular the history of cost overruns in the pre-operational phase for new nuclear plant. The role for HMG is to facilitate this investment by working with industry to take actions to minimise the risk of delay or cost over-run to first plant and to increase regulatory and market certainty. Timely deployment of first plant could also have knock on benefits for securing financing for subsequent plant. Issues with financing multiple plant Although it is expected that the current consortia will be able to finance first plant against balance sheet is not clear how many plant could be financed in this way and it is considered unlikely that large scale and rapid expansion of nuclear generation involving multiple parallel build could be financed in this way. Current development consortia are already highly leveraged and as currently configured will have access to a limited amount of capital to use for UK new nuclear projects which faces competing demand from different technological and geographical markets. 1 “Securing Investment in Nuclear in the Context of Low Carbon Generation” available from http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/Market%20Sector/Pow er_and_Utilities/Securing-investment-in-Nuclear.pdf Page 2 of 171 If the first new nuclear plant are built to time and cost in the UK this could open up different sources and approaches to financing the construction phase of nuclear plant in t he UK. Issues with refinancing operational plant Given that a major risk for nuclear investment is the uncertainty in the construction phase it should be easier to refinance operational plant provided that there is greater certainty on revenues, Government policy, liabilities and performance. Greater certainty over revenues and government policy is expected to be addressed by EMR policies whilst certainty over the level of liability is being addressed to some extent through the work on Funded Decommissioning Plans and Paris / Brussels. What have been the political and policy impacts of the Fukushima incident? Political Impacts Following the accident at the TEPCO Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima the UK Government remains committed to ensuring energy security through a diverse energy mix that includes nuclear energy. To ensure the UK position on nuclear remained robust in terms of safety the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change commissioned Dr Mike Weightman, the Chief Nuclear Inspector, to undertake a review of the impacts of the accident on the UK civil nuclear industry. Dr Weightman delivered an interim report in May 2012 and a final report in September 2012. His report included a number of recommendations that Government, industry and the regulators are working towards implementing. However, the report was clear that there were no significant weaknesses in the UK system and therefore there were no grounds to change the position that nuclear energy should form part of the UK’s energy mix. The Government’s position on nuclear is therefore unchanged. Dr Weightman’s report and the Government’s response can be found at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/safety_and_ sec/weightman/weightman.aspx Other Policy Impacts and Action Stress Test In addition to the review undertaken by Dr Weightman the UK has also fully participated in the European Union’s (EU) comprehensive safety assessment Page 3 of 171 for the EU’s 143 nuclear power plants – the so called stress tests. The stress test followed the following steps: • Operators applied the stress test criteria in June 2011 and provided a progress report to national regulators in August and a final report at the end of September 2011. • National regulators assessed the reports and provided a national progress report to the Commission on 15th September with the final report being submitted at the end of 2011 . • The Commission provided an initial report of the findings of the Stress Test to European Council in December. • This was followed by a peer review of the national reports between January and April 2012. • This process was completed on 25th April 2012 through a published statement where ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators) and the Commission jointly endorsed the final report of the Peer Review Board on the EU nuclear safety stress tests exercise . The UK National report was in line with the assessment undertaken by the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations on the impact of the Fukushima accident on the UK nuclear industry (as requested by the Secretary of State) and the UK’s interim report on progress with the implementation of the stress test exercise. The final report indicates that they are no fundamental weaknesses in the definition of design basis events or the safety systems to withstand them for UK NPPs. However, like earlier findings the report does identify some areas that will need to be strengthened in light of the lessons learned from Fukushima. Licensees and the ONR have derived a number of potential improvements, mainly to enhance resilience of emergency arrangements but also to enhance safety margin assessment methods. There are also potential improvements to the type or number of barriers to some hazards, e.g. flooding, which should increase defence in depth to beyond design basis events. The outcomes from these assessments will be considered and where necessary addressed as part of each sites commitment to continuous improvement under the requirements of the existing UK nuclear safety regime. The results of the stress test exercise (including the UK’s national report) can be found at: http://www.ensreg.eu/eu-stress-tests Dr Weightman has also committed to publishing an update in the Autumn that will combine the progress from both his lessons learned report and the stress tests – this will also most likely be located on DECC website. EU Nuclear Safety Frameworks As an EU Member State the UK is obliged to comply with the EU Nuclear Safety Directive (Council Directive 2009/71 – Euratom). The Directive came into force in July 2009. The UK implemented the Directive using the existing UK Page 4 of 171 nuclear safety regulatory regime and confirmed this position (through a transposition note) with the European Commission within the transposition deadline – ie July 2011. In ensuring the Directive had been fully implemented consideration was given to the outcome of the review undertaken by Dr Weightman and the interim results of the stress test (both mentioned above). The UK regulatory regime requires operators to seek continuous improvement and take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure nuclear safety (ie operators are obliged to consider international best practice and apply lessons learned from Fukushima). It was therefore decided that the legislation in place was robust as it already took account of the need to learn lessons from accidents such as those at Fukushima and also gave effect to the Directive. T he Commission have confirmed the UK have implemented the Directive. European Commission are currently undertaking a review of the EU Nuclear Safety Directive in light of the lessons learned from the Stress Test exercise. The review is due to be complete by the end of 2012. While it would be premature to comment on the outcome of the review DECC have already confirmed that we will be fully participating in discussions on any proposals to change the current Nuclear Safety Directive to ensure they are proportionate and evidence based. T his is in line with normal practice. Other International Activity In addition the UK has participated in the development of the IAEA’s Action Plan on strengthening the international nuclear safety framework in light of lessons learned from the accident at Fukushima.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download a Copy
    Cover image: Courtesey of EDF Energy — www.edfenergy.com/energy CONTENTS... 1 AT A GLANCE... 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 4 BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 5 WHAT THE PUBLIC THINK... 6 HOW NUCLEAR CREATES ENERGY... 7 HOW A REACTOR WORKS... 8 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE... 9 MANAGING WASTE... 10 RADIATION EXPLAINED... 12 NUCLEAR AROUND THE WORLD... 14 UK NUCLEAR SITES... 16 NUCLEAR NEW BUILD... 17 NEW BUILD IN NUMBERS... 18 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE... 19 DECOMMISSIONING... 20 CAREERS IN NUCLEAR... 21 FUTHER INFORMATION... AT A GLANCE... Nuclear is a major part of our energy mix. Today it accounts for 21% of electricity generated in the UK and has been providing secure low carbon electricity for over 60 years. Low carbon energy, including There are 15 nuclear power and renewables, nuclear power account for almost 51% of the reactors operating UK’s generation electricity mix across eight sites in the UK In 2016 nuclear energy avoided 22.7 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions in the UK BEIS,Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2018 That’s equivalent to taking around a third of all cars in the UK off the road Civil nuclear contributes over £6 billion to the jobs in the UK civil nuclear sector UK economy as much as aerospace manufacturing 12,159 Women in civil nuclear 1,981 People on apprenticeships Three quarters of the public 914 believe nuclear should be part People on graduate schemes of the clean energy mix Jobs Map figures generated from participating NIA members 1 This simple timeline charts some of the key people, events and legislation A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY..
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum Policy Conference
    Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum policy conference Next steps for developing the UK nuclear sector - regulation and finance, delivering new builds, and priorities for innovation, collaboration and skills Timing: Morning, Tuesday, 20th October 2020 ***Taking Place Online*** Draft agenda subject to change 8.30 Registration 9.00 Chair’s opening remarks Lord Ravensdale 9.05 The future for regulating the UK nuclear sector and ensuring regulation is agile, fit for purpose, and harmonised with international standards Mike Finnerty, Deputy Chief Nuclear Inspector and New Reactors Director, Office for Nuclear Regulation Questions and comments from the floor 9.35 Break 9.40 Case study: designing a stable funding and development model for nuclear projects in the UK, and latest progress on the Hinkley Point C project Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Managing Director, Nuclear Development, EDF Energy 9.55 Priorities for progressing nuclear new builds and establishing project reliability, stability, and reduced investment risk Alan Raymant, Chief Executive, Bradwell B Project, CGN Patrick Robinson, Partner, Burges Salmon Vanja Munerati, Transaction Director, Business and Investor Advisory, Arup Professor Lenny Koh, Director, Centre for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, University of Sheffield, and Head of Communication, Partnership and Internationalization, The University of Sheffield Energy Institute Questions and comments from the floor with Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Managing Director, Nuclear Development, EDF Energy 10.55 Chair’s closing
    [Show full text]
  • IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Managing the Financial Risk Associated with Financing of New Nuclear Power Plant Projects No
    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Managing the Financial Risk Associated with the Financing of New Nuclear Power Plant Projects Power Managing the Financial Risk Associated with Financing of New Nuclear No. NG-T-4.6 Basic Managing the Principles Financial Risk Associated with Objectives the Financing of New Nuclear Power Guides Plant Projects Technical Reports @ IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Electricity Market
    HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Economic Affairs 2nd Report of Session 2016–17 The Price of Power: Reforming the Electricity Market Ordered to be printed 8 February 2017 and published 24 February 2017 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 113 Select Committee on Economic Affairs The Economic Affairs Committee was appointed by the House of Lords in this session “to consider economic affairs”. Membership The Members of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs are: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Lord Layard Lord Burns Lord Livermore Lord Darling of Roulanish Lord Sharkey Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Tugendhat Lord Hollick (Chairman) Lord Turnbull Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Baroness Wheatcroft Lord Lamont of Lerwick Declaration of interests See Appendix 1. A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords- interests Publications All publications of the Committee are available at: http://www.parliament.uk/hleconomicaffairs Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The staff who worked on this inquiry were Ayeesha Waller (Clerk), Ben McNamee (Policy Analyst), Oswin Taylor (Committee Assistant) and Dr Aaron Goater and Dr Jonathan Wentworth of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Contact details All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Economic Affairs Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Pull-Outs, Rumours, Threats
    Nuclear Pull-outs, Rumours, Threats Briefing (3rd Edition): November 2013 Date Utility/Company Country Pull-out, rumour or threat Early 2009 Entergy US Suspends applications for Grand Gulf (Mississippi) and River Bend (Louisiana) April 2009 Ameren UE US Cancels plans to build Callaway 2 (Missouri) December 2009 Unistar Nuclear US Suspends application for Nine Mile Point 3 (New York) October 2010 Constellation Energy US Pulls out of joint venture with EDF to build Calvert Cliffs 3 (Maryland) March 2011 Commerzbank Germany Pulls out of Jaitapur nuclear project in Maharashtra, India May 2011 Swiss Government Switzerland The Swiss Government announces plans to phas- out nuclear power by 2034. May 2011 German Government Germany German Government announces plans to phase- out nuclear power by 2022. June 2011 Italian Government Italy More than 94% of voters in a referendum opposed the government’s plans to resume nuclear power generation. August 2011 Tennessee Valley US Suspends plans for 2 reactors at Bellefonte Authority (Alabama) September 2011 Siemens Germany Quits nuclear industry September 2011 SSE Scotland Pulls out of UK NuGen consortium September 2011 Shaw US Announces sale of 20% share in Westinghouse November 2011 Belgian Government Belgium Belgium's main political parties have agreed on a plan to shut down the country's two nuclear power stations by 2025, with the oldest reactors closing by 2015. January 2012 Progress Energy US Expects to pull-out from planned Levy 1 and 2 reactors (Florida) March 2012 E.ON Germany Announces pull-out from UK Horizon March 2012 RWE nPower Germany Announces pull-out from UK Horizon April 2012 Centrica UK Threatens pull-out from UK Hinkley consortium without UK Gov’t assurances on future price of nuclear electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses , File Type: PDF, File Size
    Call for Evidence Review of Current Policy on the Disposal of Higher Activity Radioactive Waste Responses October 2014 1 CONTENTS Introduction 3 Snowdonia National Park Authority 4 Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) 5 Friends of the Earth Cymru 14 Copeland Borough Council 15 PAWB 17 Llanddyfnan Community Council 20 Phillip Steele 21 Magnox 22 Dylan Morgan 24 Elaine Powell 26 GreenPeace 28 NuLEAF, 29 CND Cymru 32 Anonymised Response 1 34 Anonymised Response 2 36 John Nicholson 37 Manon Huws 40 CoRWM 41 Natural Resources Wales 42 Dr Carl Iwan Clowes 44 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 46 EDF Energy 49 Anonymised Response 3 51 Planet Hydrogen 76 2 Introduction Responses to the consultation have been published below. A number of responses (7) were received in Welsh and the translation is provided below. Where requested, details of the respondents have been withheld. The main response have been published – where supporting materials were provided, they have not been published here, although they were considered. The questions are below – these have not been repeated in the body of responses. Question 1: Should the Welsh Government review is current policy on HAW disposal? Question 2: CoRWM carried out extensive work before recommending geological disposal in its report in 2006, and confirmed that recommendation in 2013. In the light of this, if the Welsh Government reviews its current policy, should it limit its consideration of disposal options for HAW to geological disposal? Question 3: If the Welsh Government should consider disposal options other than geological disposal, what should these be? Question 4: Do you have any other comments on the Welsh Government policy for the disposal of higher activity radioactive waste? 3 Snowdonia National Park Authority 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Wylfa Newydd Project Statement Of
    ENERGY WORKING FOR BRITAIN FOR WORKING ENERGY Wylfa Newydd Project Statement of Community Consultation September 2014 1 | Wylfa Newydd Project – A proposed new nuclear power station on Anglesey This Statement of Community Consultation relates to Horizon Nuclear Power Wylfa Limited’s (Horizon’s) proposals to develop a new nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey – the Wylfa Newydd Project. It explains how we will formally consult with the local community, as well as the communities, groups and individuals that we believe may potentially experience impacts or benefits as a result of our proposals. Who is Horizon and what is the Wylfa Newydd Project? The Horizon group of companies, which is ultimately owned by Horizon Nuclear Power – Hitachi, Ltd., is developing a new generation of nuclear power stations to help meet the UK’s need for safe, affordable, low carbon energy. Nuclear power can play a vital role in meeting the challenge Our Vision and of maintaining secure energy supplies for the UK, while also tackling the global threat of climate change by meeting emissions reduction targets. Mission As part of our Wylfa Newydd Project, we are proposing to construct and operate a new nuclear power station, including two UK We believe there is a compelling requirement for new Advanced Boiling Water Reactors supplied by Hitachi-GE Nuclear nuclear power in the UK to help tackle the vital and Energy, Ltd. associated plant and ancillary structures and features complex challenge of delivering a sustainable energy (the Power Station), along with associated development to support future. We will deliver secure, affordable, low carbon its delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • Terms of Reference for the Implementation Steering Group
    EMR Collaborative Development Process: Terms of Reference for the Implementation Steering Group Introduction The objective of the collaborative development process is to: Develop refined EMR process maps1 and associated design features, where these processes will involve industry and delivery agent participation; Develop an implementation plan for establishing and testing those processes; and Secure joint responsibility to ensure the delivery of the EMR programme to time. The outcome will be to develop an understanding of how EMR proposals can be implemented in practice and work at an operational level, in particular how relevant participants within the EMR regime will be required to act within that process. We intend to make material relating to this process publicly available on the DECC website. Purpose of Implementation Steering Group: To support the collaborative development process to move EMR from policy development to successful implementation To agree the TORs, membership and provide the necessary resources required for the implementation working groups To ensure there is a balance of views present at the working groups Activities: The above objectives will be achieved by carrying out the following activities: Advising DECC on the scope of the collaborative development process Advising DECC on membership of working groups Raising issues with the operation of the working groups or the solutions developed as they relate to a company’s implementation Supporting and sharing responsibility for the emerging EMR Implementation Plan Feeding relevant issues into the parallel process of drafting the Regulations Meetings: The collaborative development process is expected to take place from summer 2013 to the end of 2013. The Implementation Steering Group (ISG) will commence meetings in July 2013 in advance of the first phase of working groups to agree the scope and overall approach to collaborative development.
    [Show full text]
  • Business As Usual and Nuclear Power
    BUSINESS AS USUAL AND NUCLEAR POWER 1974 .1999 OECD, 2000. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue Andr´e-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. OECD PROCEEDINGS BUSINESS AS USUAL AND NUCLEAR POWER Joint IEA/NEA Meeting Paris, France 14-15 October 1999 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitachi Announces Suspension of UK Nuclear Power Stations Construction Project and Posting of Impairment Loss and Related Expens
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Hitachi Announces Suspension of UK Nuclear Power Stations Construction Project and Posting of Impairment Loss and Related Expenses on Consolidated Basis, Posting of Extraordinary Loss on Unconsolidated Basis, and Revisions to Full-year Consolidated Business Forecast Tokyo, January 17, 2019 --- Hitachi, Ltd. (TSE: 6501) today announced that it has decided to suspend its new nuclear power stations project in the UK (“Horizon Project”) that Horizon Nuclear Power Limited (“HNP”), a subsidiary of Hitachi and power generation development company in the UK, has been undertaking at Wylfa Newydd on Anglesey Island in north-west Wales. The decision was made from the viewpoint of Hitachi’s economic rationality as a private enterprise. Accordingly, Hitachi plans to post an impairment loss and other expenses on consolidated financial results for fiscal 2018, the year ending March 31, 2019 (from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019). It also plans to post an extraordinary loss on unconsolidated financial results for fiscal 2018, the year ending March 31, 2019. Based on these points, Hitachi has revised its full-year consolidated business forecast for fiscal 2018, the year ending March 31, 2019 as follows. 1. Posting Losses Associated with the Suspension of the Horizon Project (1) Backgrounds and Contents of the Losses Hitachi acquired HNP from the UK subsidiaries of the two German power companies for 88.9 billion yen (697 million pounds) in November 2012 to develop its nuclear business in the UK and to contribute to the UK Government’s energy policy, and to maintain and reinforce the business base that supports the Japanese nuclear industry.
    [Show full text]
  • New Nuclear Power Industry Procurement Markets
    Research Monograph 2014-01 2014 Edited by Edited Geoffrey Rothwell Geoffrey and Nam Ilchong New Nuclear Power Industry Procurement Markets: International Edited by Ilchong Nam and Experiences Geoffrey Rothwell korea develoPMeNt INstItute International Experiences International Markets: Procurement Industry Power Nuclear New ISBN 978-89-8063-902-1 연구시리즈_남일총_Procurement_최종.indd 1 2014.12.23 2:22:19 PM Research- Monograph 2014-01 New Nuclear Power Industry Procurement Markets: International Experiences Edited by Ilchong Nam and Geoffrey Rothwell ⓒ December 2014 Korea Development Institute 15, Giljae-gil, Sejong-si 339-007, Korea ISBN 978-89-8063-902-1 (93320) Price: =8,600 ▌ Preface ▌ Despite the uncertainties about the cost and nuclear reactor melt- downs, nuclear power remains one of the major energy sources in many industrialized countries. Nuclear power is one of the major low carbon energy sources that many developing countries hope to de- pend on in the future. Ensuring the safety and efficiency of nuclear power generation is vital to the economic performance of many countries and their citizens. Efficiency and safety of this technology depends on many factors. One of the crucial safety and efficiency factors of nuclear power generation is the performance of the pro- curement market in which parts, components, and services to build and operate nuclear power plants are traded. In particular, perfor- mance of the market in which safety related parts and components are traded is crucial to the efficiency and safety of nuclear power generation. Despite the importance of the procurement market for nuclear power generation, there have been few economic studies on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitachi's Involvement in Use of Nuclear Power Generation To
    Hitachi Review Vol. 62 (2013), No. 1 70 Hitachi’s Involvement in Use of Nuclear Power Generation to Resolve Energy Issues Masahiko Nakane OVERVIEW: Despite significant changes in the status of nuclear power Takashi Masui generation around the world since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Masahiro Hamamoto Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., considerations such as global environmental problems and energy security mean that many Mizuki Igarashi countries still have plans to introduce nuclear power under study or in progress. Regarding the adoption of nuclear power generation by countries that are pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Hitachi is collaborating with its BWR technology partner, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC, to make further safety improvements and to work toward resolving global energy issues. INTRODUCTION generation. However, because the Ignalina power WHEN the future of nuclear power is considered, plant used the same light-water-cooled, graphite- factors such as the shale gas (unconventional natural moderated reactors as the Chernobyl Nuclear Power gas) revolution in the USA and changes in policy Plant, Unit 1 was shutdown in late 2004 and Unit 2 in by national governments after the accident at the late 2009 as part of the terms of the nation’s accession Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station mean that to the European Union (EU), and the reactors are circumstances have changed significantly from the “nuclear renaissance” that people spoke of only a few years ago. Nevertheless, highly economic nuclear 0 30 60 km power has a contribution to make to society and still Planned site for construction of retains an important role as a way of overcoming Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant global challenges such as global environmental problems and energy security.
    [Show full text]