DOCSLIB.ORG

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 with Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 with Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK) Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London (UK) Doug Koplow Director of Earth Track, Cambridge (USA) Modeling and Additional Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris (France) Paris, August 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety (Contract n° UM0901290) About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004 he has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 1997, along with Japan's Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize”. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy consultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states. He has worked extensively on EU energy issues for European Governments, the European Commission and Parliament, environmental NGOs, commercial bodies and media. He has given evidence to inquiries and hearings in the Parliaments of Austria, Germany and the EU. He is a part time senior research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs – Chatham House in London. Mr. Froggatt works intensively with environmental groups across Europe, particularly on energy markets and policy and helped to establish a network on energy efficiency. He is a regular speaker at conferences, universities and training programs across the region. Prior to working freelance Antony worked for nine years as a nuclear campaigner and co- coordinator for Greenpeace International. Steve Thomas is Professor for energy policy at the Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), University of Greenwich, where he has been senior researcher since 2001. Mr. Thomas holds a BSc (honors) degree in Chemistry from Bristol University and has been working in energy policy analysis since 1976. His main research interests are reforms of energy industries, economics and policy towards nuclear power, and corporate policies of energy industry companies. Recent clients include Public Services International, the European Federation of Public Service Unions, the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (USA), Energywatch (UK) and Greenpeace International. Doug Koplow founded Earth Track in 1999 to more effectively integrate information on energy subsidies. For the past 20 years, Mr. Koplow has written extensively on natural resource subsidies for organizations such as the Global Subsidies Initiative, the National Commission on Energy Policy, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Greenpeace, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. He has analyzed numerous government programs and made important developments in subsidy valuation techniques. Mr. Koplow holds an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and a BA in economics from Wesleyan University. Contacts Mycle Schneider Antony Froggatt Steve Thomas Doug Koplow Phone: +33-1-69 83 23 79 Ph: +44-20-79 23 04 12 Ph: +44-208 331 9056 Ph: +1-617-661 4700 Email: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: [email protected] M. Schneider, S. Thomas, A. Froggatt, D. Koplow World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 2 Contents Executive Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................................................5 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................8 II.1. Overview of Operation, Power Generation, Age Distribution...................................... 8 II.2. International Nuclear Expansion Scenarios.....................................................................12 II.3. Overview of Current New­build............................................................................................14 II.4. Overview of Potential Newcomer Countries ....................................................................21 II.5. Status and Trends in Nuclear Manufacturing Capacities.............................................27 II.6. Status and Trends in Nuclear Competence.......................................................................30 III. Economic Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 40 III.1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................40 III.1.1. Problems of estimating and comparing nuclear costs .......................................................41 III.1.2. Generation III+ plants ......................................................................................................................42 III.2. The Determinants of Nuclear Economics.........................................................................44 III.3. Fixed Costs..................................................................................................................................45 III.3.1. Construction costs..............................................................................................................................45 III.3.2. Operating costs....................................................................................................................................61 III.3.3. Decommissioning costs ...................................................................................................................63 III.3.4. Lifetime...................................................................................................................................................63 III.4. Implications for Existing and Future Reactors ..............................................................64 III.4.1. Existing reactors.................................................................................................................................65 III.4.2. Reactors under construction.........................................................................................................65 III.4.3. Reactors on which construction has stopped........................................................................66 III.4.4. Future orders .......................................................................................................................................66 III.5. Nuclear Liability Issues..........................................................................................................67 III.6. The Subsidy Issue.....................................................................................................................70 III.6.1. Overview of subsidies to nuclear energy.................................................................................70 III.6.2. Common forms of support around the world........................................................................71 III.6.3. Subsidies to existing reactors in the USA.................................................................................76 III.6.4. Subsidies to the UK’s Existing Nuclear Power Plants.........................................................81 III.6.5. The Future.............................................................................................................................................88 IV.1. Africa ............................................................................................................................................88 IV.2. Americas......................................................................................................................................89 IV.3. Asia................................................................................................................................................93 IV.4. Europe..........................................................................................................................................98 IV.4.1. Nuclear Power in Western Europe .............................................................................................99 IV.4.2. Nuclear Power in Central and Eastern Europe................................................................... 108 IV.5. Russia and the Former Soviet Union .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron
    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence EPRG Working Paper 1407 Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1457 Raphael J. Heffron and William J. Nuttall Abstract This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland’s energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS REPORT on SEISMIC RE-EVALUATION English Only Text
    Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques OLIS : 10-Nov-1998 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Dist. : 16-Nov-1998 __________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS STATUS REPORT ON SEISMIC RE-EVALUATION English text English only 71673 Document incomplet sur OLIS Incomplete document on OLIS NEA/CSNI/R(98)5 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. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter; Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom. Region 4 South-East Scotland: Montrose to Eyemouth
    Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 4 South-east Scotland: Montrose to Eyemouth edited by J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson, S.S. Kaznowska, J.P. Doody, N.C. Davidson & A.L. Buck Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY UK ©JNCC 1997 This volume has been produced by the Coastal Directories Project of the JNCC on behalf of the project Steering Group. JNCC Coastal Directories Project Team Project directors Dr J.P. Doody, Dr N.C. Davidson Project management and co-ordination J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson Editing and publication S.S. Kaznowska, A.L. Buck, R.M. Sumerling Administration & editorial assistance J. Plaza, P.A. Smith, N.M. Stevenson The project receives guidance from a Steering Group which has more than 200 members. More detailed information and advice comes from the members of the Core Steering Group, which is composed as follows: Dr J.M. Baxter Scottish Natural Heritage R.J. Bleakley Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland R. Bradley The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales Dr J.P. Doody Joint Nature Conservation Committee B. Empson Environment Agency C. Gilbert Kent County Council & National Coasts and Estuaries Advisory Group N. Hailey English Nature Dr K. Hiscock Joint Nature Conservation Committee Prof. S.J. Lockwood Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences C.R. Macduff-Duncan Esso UK (on behalf of the UK Offshore Operators Association) Dr D.J. Murison Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department Dr H.J. Prosser Welsh Office Dr J.S. Pullen WWF-UK (Worldwide Fund for Nature) Dr P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy: the Big Lie
    The Trap Chapter 6 Nuclear Energy: The Big Lie You believe that it is possible to make a very major change in our energy policy? Yes. Technology is now available which would allow us to transform the way we produce and use energy. If we seize the opportunity to make a radical change, the effects would be extraordinarily beneficial to the economy, the environment and public safety. What has suddenly changed to make you so optimistic? The Cold War has ended. During the Cold War, the principal weapons were nuclear. Nuclear energy was an extension of military research and both were to some degree controlled by the same state scientific elites, which for reasons of national security maintained secrecy even when the nuclear programme was extended to non-military projects. Successive governments believed that if problems arose in the civil project, these should be kept secret so as not to endanger the military programme. At first it was thought that nuclear energy would be safe and unlimited, and therefore would put an end to western dependence on imported energy. It was also believed that electricity generated by nuclear means would be, as the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission declared, 'too cheap to meter'.1 Western governments devoted a major part of their resources to developing nuclear energy. Between 1979 and 1990 the member nations of the International Energy Agency spent nearly 60 per cent of their energy research budget on nuclear power. Only 9.4 per cent was devoted to developing renewable sources of energy and 6.4 per cent to methods for saving energy.2 With almost unlimited state backing, nuclear scientists and administrators operated in secret and above the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulatory Control of Radioactive Waste
    RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENTAND DECOMMISSIONING IN ITALY 1. NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND DECOMMISSIONING 1.1 National Framework 1.1.1 Overview of national policy Commercial utilisation of nuclear power in Italy started in 1963 and by 1981 four nuclear power plants, namely the NPPs of Garigliano (BWR), Latina (MAGNOX), Trino (PWR) and Caorso (BWR), and a LEU fuel fabrication installation (Bosco Marengo S.p.A.) had been commissioned. During that period the Nuclear Energy Research Agency (CNEN) – now the Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) - developed an extensive R&D programme on the nuclear fuel cycle with the operation of experimental fuel cycle installations (e.g. ITREC and EUREX). The three NPPs of Latina, Trino and Caorso continued to be operated until 1987, when they were definitely shut down based on a governmental decision which interpreted the results of a national referendum, called upon after the Chernobyl accident, as the will to abandon the nuclear option. The NPP of Garigliano had been already shut down in 1978, for technical reasons. At the same time the nuclear programme was cancelled, the Interministerial Committee for the Economical Planning (CIPE) required the National Electricity Company (ENEL S.p.A.) to start the decommissioning of the NPPs and a “Safe storage” (IAEA level 1/2) option was initially adopted. In 1999, all ENEL S.p.A. liabilities and assets connected to nuclear power were assigned to a newly established company, named Sogin (Società Gestione Impianti Nucleari) S.p.A., whose shareholder is the Ministry of Economy and Finance, while the Ministry of Economic Development gives the strategic and operational objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Endless Trouble: Britain's Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Endless Trouble Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Martin Forwood, Gordon MacKerron and William Walker Research Report No. 19 International Panel on Fissile Materials Endless Trouble: Britain’s Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) © 2019 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit ww.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 On the cover: the world map shows in highlight the United Kingdom, site of THORP Dedication For Martin Forwood (1940–2019) Distinguished colleague and dear friend Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Introduction 2 THORP: An Operational History 4 THORP: A Political History 11 THORP: A Chronology 1974 to 2018 21 Endnotes 26 About the authors 29 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006 and is an independent group of arms control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear- weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable pol- icy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to achieving nuclear disarmament, to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear- weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Term Storage of Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor (Agr) Fuel Xa9951796 P.N
    IAEA-SM-352/28 THE LONG TERM STORAGE OF ADVANCED GAS-COOLED REACTOR (AGR) FUEL XA9951796 P.N. STANDRING Thorp Technical Department, British Nuclear Fuels pic, Sellafield, Seascale, Cumbria, United Kingdom Abstract The approach being taken by BNFL in managing the AGR lifetime spent fuel arisings from British Energy reactors is given. Interim storage for up to 80 years is envisaged for fuel delivered beyond the life of the Thorp reprocessing plant. Adopting a policy of using existing facilities, to comply with the principles of waste minimisation, has defined the development requirements to demonstrate that this approach can be undertaken safely and business issues can be addressed. The major safety issues are the long term integrity of both the fuel being stored and structure it is being stored in. Business related issues reflect long term interactions with the rest of the Sellafield site and storage optimisation. Examples of the developement programme in each of these areas is given. 1. INTRODUCTION British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has been contracted to manage the lifetime irradiated AGR fuel arisings from British Energy reactors1. The agreement formulated is a mixture of reprocessing (covering the planned life of the Thorp reprocessing plant) and interim storage for the remainder of the fuel arisings. Interim storage is projected to be up to 80 years to comply with direct disposal acceptance criteria and projected repository availability. Eighty years represents a significant increase in storage times compared to current operational experience; of around 18 years. Confidence that AGR fuel can be stored safely for extended periods has been provided by our experience of storing AGR fuel to date and the supporting research and development programmes initiated in the late 1970's for wet storage and 1990's in the case of Scottish Nuclear (SNL) dry storage project.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Financial Report at March 31, 2009
    INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORT AT MARCH 31, 2009 INTERIM FINANCIAL REPORT AT MARCH 31, 2009 Contents INTERIM REPORT ON OPERATIONS INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AT MARCH 31, 2009 STATEMENTS AT MARCH 31, 2009 6 The Enel structure 64 Condensed Consolidated Income Statement 7 Foreword 65 Statement of total recognized income/(expenses) for the Period 8 Summary of results 66 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet 10 Significant events in the 1st Quarter of 2009 67 Statement of Changes in Consolidated Shareholders’ Equity 13 Outlook 68 Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 14 Regulatory and rate issues 69 Notes to the interim consolidated financial statements 32 Operating review at March 31, 2009 35 Results by Division 39 – Sales 41 – Generation and Energy Management 44 – Engineering and Innovation 45 – Infrastructure and Networks 47 – Iberia and Latin America REPORTS 50 – International 54 – Renewable Energy 57 – Parent Company, Services and Other Activities 94 Report of the Independent Auditors 59 Operating performance and financial position 4 Interim report on operations 5 at March 31, 2009 6 The Enel structure Corporate Enel SpA Sales Generation and Engineering Infrastructure Energy Management and Innovation and Networks Enel Servizio Elettrico Enel Produzione Enel Produzione Enel Distribuzione Enel Energia Enel Trade Enel Rete Gas Vallenergie Enel Trade Hungary Enel Sole Enel Trade Romania Deval Nuove Energie Enel Linee Alta Tensione (1) Hydro Dolomiti Enel Enel Stoccaggi Iberia and Latin America International Renewable Energy Services
    [Show full text]
  • CNS Fifth Italian National Report
    Convention on Nuclear Safety Sixth Italian National Report 2013 Convention on Nuclear Safety Sixth Italian National Report 2013 This National Report has been prepared on behalf of the Italian Government by the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................5 SECTION B. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................11 Introductory Remarks .................................................................................................................... 11 Italy’s Nuclear Activities Policy .................................................................................................... 11 Policy Developments ..................................................................................................................... 14 Decommissioning policy .................................................................................................................................. 14 Spent fuel management policy......................................................................................................................... 14 Radioactive waste management policy............................................................................................................ 15 List of Nuclear Installations in Italy.............................................................................................. 18 Italian Participation
    [Show full text]
  • The Decommissioning of the Latina Nuclear Power Plant
    WM’01 Conference, February 25-March 1, 2001, Tucson, AZ THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE LATINA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT G. Bolla, Eur Ing. Director, Plant Activities Co-ordination, Sogin, Italy. E. Macci, Eur. Ing. Decommissioning Planning Manager, Sogin, Italy. J. F. D. Craik, C. Eng Decommissioning Manager - Bradwell & Hinkley A, BNFL, UK P. Walkden, Ph.D., C Eng. Development Manger, BNFL, UK ABSTRACT Following a referendum in Italy in the late 1980s, the four nuclear power stations owned and operated by the state utility ENEL were closed down. During the late 1990s, twin decisions were made to privatise ENEL and to transform the nuclear division of ENEL into a separate subsidiary of the ENEL group. This group was renamed Sogin and during the past year, the shares in the company have been transferred from ENEL to the Italian Treasury. After agreeing to close the Italian NPPs, ENEL selected a “safestore” decommissioning strategy; anticipating a safestore period of some 40-50 years. This approach was consistent with the funds collected by ENEL during plant operation, and was reinforced by the lack of both a LLW repository and an unambiguous set of clearance limits for the free release of contaminated materials in Italy. On formation, Sogin was asked by the Italian government to review the national decommissioning strategy. The objective of the review was to move from a safestore strategy to a prompt decommissioning strategy, with the target of releasing all of the nuclear sites by 2020. It was recognised that this target was conditional upon the availability of a national LLW repository together with interim stores for both spent fuel and HLW by 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Beautiful
    photovoltaics pv parks in italy Highly symbolic location: where once a nuclear power plant was planned, today PV modules produce clean and sustainable energy. Photos (2): SMA Italia isBig beautiful In December 2009, one of the largest solar parks wants to re-introduce nuclear power in Italy in an att- empt to reduce energy costs, which are definitively in Italy was inaugurated in Montalto di Castro, the highest in all of Western Europe at the very least. The solar power plant project started in 2008, Tuscany. In early June 2010 an extension was while the installation work started in February 2009. announced: the project is now scheduled to grow The environmental benefits are impressive; the park will produce electricity for more than 13,000 Italian to 100 MW by the end of 2010. families, and there will be a cut of more than 22,000 tons of CO2, equivalent to planting more than two mil- hile the 24 MW PV park in Montalto di Cas- lion trees. tro today has a capacity to produce The added value of the project is represented by W40,000 MWh per year, its extension will the strong collaboration between two big players, make it a competitor to the SunEdison solar park namely SMA and Sunpower, which collaborated to (72 MW) near Rovigo, Veneto region, to become the put up the solar park and connect it to the grid, over- biggest solar park in Italy. The Montalto di Castro coming all the administrative and bureaucratic prob- plant is sited near a nuclear power plant, whose con- lems they faced due to the size of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • CNS Fifth Italian National Report
    Convention on Nuclear Safety Seventh Italian National Report 2016 Convention on Nuclear Safety Seventh Italian National Report 2016 This National Report has been prepared on behalf of the Italian Government by the Nuclear, Technological and Industrial Risk Department of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), which carries out the functions of national competent regulatory authority for nuclear safety and radiation protection TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 9 Introductory Remarks .................................................................................................................... 11 Italy’s Nuclear Activities Policy .................................................................................................... 11 Policy Developments ..................................................................................................................... 14 Decommissioning policy .................................................................................................................................. 14 Spent fuel management policy ......................................................................................................................... 16 Radioactive waste management policy ............................................................................................................ 16 Institutional and regulatory framework ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]