DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of Research Relevant to New Build Nuclear Power Plants in the UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of Research Relevant to New Build Nuclear Power Plants in the UK A Review of Research Relevant to New Build Nuclear Power Plants in the UK Including new estimates of the CO2 implications of gas generating capacity as an alternative January 2013 Tyndall Manchester University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL with Tyndall Centre Sussex University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9QE A research briefing commissioned by Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland. All views contained within are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the wider Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, University of Sussex, Friends of the Earth or the report’s reviewers. Chapter 6 on the economics of nuclear power, was prepared by Jim Watson and Iulia Falcan at Tyndall Centre Sussex. All other chapters were prepared by Kevin Anderson, Christopher Jones, John Broderick and Stephen Glynn at Tyndall Manchester. The authors would like to thank Bea Jefferson, Tom Langridge and Vicki Ramsden at Tyndall Manchester for their assistance in compiling and preparing this report, as well as Steven Wallbridge, Mike Childs, Simon Bullock and the peer reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. All errors and omissions remain the authors’. 1 Contents 1 Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Structure ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Research methodology ........................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Lead authors ........................................................................................................................... 7 3 Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Reactor safety ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Nuclear power and ionising radiation ................................................................................... 10 3.3 Nuclear safety and climate change adaption ....................................................................... 15 3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 16 4 Radioactive waste management .................................................................................................. 17 4.1 Radioactive waste from nuclear power ................................................................................ 17 4.2 UK Radioactive waste policy ................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Impact of a new build nuclear programme on radioactive waste management ................. 21 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 22 5 Proliferation of nuclear weapons ................................................................................................. 23 5.1 Proliferation risk from a new UK reactor programme .......................................................... 23 5.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 23 6 Economics of nuclear power ........................................................................................................ 24 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 24 6.2 A brief history of nuclear costs ............................................................................................. 24 6.3 Key terms and parameters .................................................................................................... 26 6.4 Comparing recent estimates for nuclear costs in the UK ..................................................... 28 6.5 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 36 6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 38 7 Siting and planning of low carbon generation ............................................................................. 41 7.1 The planning regime ............................................................................................................. 41 7.2 Site selection ......................................................................................................................... 42 7.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 44 8 Employment ................................................................................................................................. 45 8.1 Issues with employment models .......................................................................................... 45 3 8.2 Employment in nuclear power .............................................................................................. 46 8.3 UK Employment .................................................................................................................... 47 8.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 48 9 Issues in managing a low carbon grid .......................................................................................... 49 9.1 Issues associated with an entirely renewable grid ............................................................... 50 9.2 CCS as an alternative to nuclear power ................................................................................ 51 9.3 A mixed nuclear and renewables grid ................................................................................... 52 9.4 Connection to the grid .......................................................................................................... 53 9.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 54 10 Interactions between nuclear power and other low carbon technologies.................................. 56 10.1 Electricity generation as more than just technology ............................................................ 56 10.2 Aspects of compatibility ........................................................................................................ 56 10.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 58 11 CO2 Implications of substituting gas for nuclear power generation ............................................ 59 11.1 DECC Central scenario ........................................................................................................... 59 11.2 CCC Illustrative scenario........................................................................................................ 60 11.3 Nuclear capacity and generation in each scenario ............................................................... 61 11.4 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment ................................................................... 62 11.5 General assumptions ............................................................................................................ 64 11.6 Contextualising CO2 implications .......................................................................................... 67 11.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 70 12 Nuclear power and climate change mitigation pathways ............................................................ 72 12.1 Comparison of CCC and FoE Pathways to 2030 .................................................................... 72 12.2 Post 2030 .............................................................................................................................. 75 12.3 Discussion: How the Copenhagen Accord’s “on the basis of equity” reduces emissions budgets for the UK ............................................................................................................................ 75 13 References .................................................................................................................................... 79 14 Annex 1 – Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................... 90 4 2 Introduction This report has been commissioned by Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland (FoE) to independently review evidence on key issues relating to the potential new fleet of nuclear power stations that may be built in the UK over the period 2017 to 2030. The report draws primarily on peer-reviewed academic literature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Tyndall Centre Briefing Note 40
    Review of the Fourth Carbon Budget - Call for Evidence www.theccc.org.uk/call-for-evidence Question and Response form When responding please provide answers that are as specific and evidence-based as possible, providing data and references to the extent possible. Please limit your response to a maximum of 400 words per question. Questions for consideration: A. Climate Science and International Circumstances The Committee’s advice assumes a climate objective to limit central estimates of temperature rise to as close to 2C as possible, with a very low chance of exceeding 4C by 2100 (henceforth referred to as “the climate objective”). This is broadly similar to the UNFCCC climate objective, and that of the EU. In order to achieve this objective, global emissions would have to peak in the next few years, before decreasing to roughly half of recent levels by 2050 and falling further thereafter. The UNFCCC is working toward a global deal consistent with such reductions, to be agreed by 2015. Earlier attempts (e.g. at Copenhagen in 2009, before the fourth budget was recommended or legislated) have failed to achieve a comprehensive global deal to limit emissions. It is difficult to imagine a global deal which allows developed countries to have emissions per capita in 2050 which are significantly above a sustainable global average, implying the need for emissions reductions in the UK of at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. The EU has not yet agreed a package beyond 2020, but the European Commission is consulting on a range of issues relating to development of climate and energy targets for 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities
    Technical Supplement The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities June 2017 Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure i Contents A Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 B Scenario Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Why is Scenario Analysis Useful? ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. What Is a Scenario? ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 3. How are Organizations Using Climate-Related Scenario Analysis? ........................................................................ 3 C Developing and Applying Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................... 4 1. Considerations for Building Climate Change into Scenario Analysis ..................................................................... 5 2. Analytical Choices in Scenario Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8 3. Tools and Data ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Nuclear Power – Science, Technology and UK
    sustainable development commission The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy Paper 1: An introduction to nuclear power – science, technology and UK policy context An evidence-based report by the Sustainable Development Commission March 2006 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 2 ELECTRICITY GENERATION ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Nuclear electricity generation ................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Fission – how does it work?..................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Moderator ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Coolant...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Radioactivity ............................................................................................................................. 6 3 THE FUEL CYCLE: FRONT END ............................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Mining and milling ................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Conversion and
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia
    LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA EDITED BY PETER VAN NESS AND MEL GURTOV WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANDREW BLAKERS, MELY CABALLERO-ANTHONY, GLORIA KUANG-JUNG HSU, AMY KING, DOUG KOPLOW, ANDERS P. MØLLER, TIMOTHY A. MOUSSEAU, M. V. RAMANA, LAUREN RICHARDSON, KALMAN A. ROBERTSON, TILMAN A. RUFF, CHRISTINA STUART, TATSUJIRO SUZUKI, AND JULIUS CESAR I. TRAJANO Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Learning from Fukushima : nuclear power in East Asia / Peter Van Ness, Mel Gurtov, editors. ISBN: 9781760461393 (paperback) 9781760461409 (ebook) Subjects: Nuclear power plants--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Risk assessment--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Health aspects--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--East Asia--Evaluation. Other Creators/Contributors: Van Ness, Peter, editor. Gurtov, Melvin, editor. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover image: ‘Fukushima apple tree’ by Kristian Laemmle-Ruff. Near Fukushima City, 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, February 2014. The number in the artwork is the radioactivity level measured in the orchard—2.166 microsieverts per hour, around 20 times normal background radiation. This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Acronyms and abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a National Citizen Engagement Process for Energy Policy
    Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy Nick Pidgeona,1, Christina Demskia, Catherine Butlerb, Karen Parkhillc, and Alexa Spenced aUnderstanding Risk Research Group, Tyndall Centre and Climate Change Consortium of Wales, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales CF10 3AT, United Kingdom; bGeography Department, The University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom; cSchool of Environment, Natural Resources, and Geography, Bangor University, Wales LL57 2UW, United Kingdom; and dHorizon Digital Economy Research and School of Psychology, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, United Kingdom Edited by Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 12, 2014 (received for review December 11, 2013) This paper examines some of the science communication chal- involved and on the promise and perils of scientific progress. In lenges involved when designing and conducting public delibera- this respect people often focus less on the technology or science tion processes on issues of national importance. We take as our per se, than on the social context within which it is to be illustrative case study a recent research project investigating deployed, including complex arguments about the regulatory or public values and attitudes toward future energy system change governance conditions surrounding the application of science. for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are However, designing successful deliberative fora is not a simple often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of matter, and in this paper we outline a series of interlinked sci- their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected ence communication challenges associated with conducting elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and public deliberation on national-level topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages �
    Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages � E. Lisa F. Schipper July 2007 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 107 Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages E. Lisa F. Schipper Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK and South East Asia START Regional Centre Bangkok, Thailand Email: [email protected] Tyndall Centre Working Paper No.107 July 2007 Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre. Manuscript has also been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal 1 Summary Successful human societies are characterised by their adaptability, evidenced throughout human existence. However, climate change introduces a new challenge, not only because of the expected rise in temperature and sea-levels, but also due to the current context of failure to address the causes of poverty adequately. As a result, policy supporting adaptation has been cast as a necessary strategy for responding to both climate change and supporting development, making adaptation the focus of much recent scholarly and policy research. This paper addresses this new adaptation discourse, arguing that work on adaptation so far has focused on responding to the impacts of climate change, rather than sufficiently addressing the underlying factors that cause vulnerability. While there is a significant push all around for adaptation to be better placed in development planning, the paper finds this to be putting the cart before the horse.
    [Show full text]
  • No2nuclearpower 1 1. Sellafield
    No2NuclearPower No.59 February 2014 1. Sellafield - poor progress, missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership 2. Plutonium – no clear strategy 3. European Commission State Aid Investigation 4. European Targets 5. Horizon – GDA 6. NuGen – an AP1000 in 4 years? 7. Day of the Jellyfish 8. NDA’s intermediate-level waste plans 9. Waste Transport 10. ECO disaster 11. Solar Prospects 12. Nuclear Innovation nuClear news No.59, February 2014 1 No2NuclearPower 1. Sellafield - poor progress, missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership Nuclear Management Partners – the consortium overseeing the clean-up of Sellafield – should have their contract terminated if performance does not improve, says Margaret Hodge, Chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The bill for cleaning up Sellafield has risen to more than £70bn, according to a report from the public accounts committee. A new report (1) from the Committee says progress has been poor, with missed targets, escalating costs, slipping deadlines and weak leadership. The MPs made a series of recommendations focusing on the role of Nuclear Management Partners (NMP). The report concluded that the consortium was to blame for many of the escalating costs and the MPs said they could not understand why the NDA extended the consortium's contract last October. (2) Damning criticism of the consortium was also revealed in a series of hostile letters written by John Clarke, head of the NDA. Mr Clarke accused Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) of undermining confidence and damaging the entire project’s reputation, as well as criticising Tom Zarges, the consortium chairman, of setting “unduly conservative” targets.
    [Show full text]
  • Kwantitatieve Bepaling Van De Invloed Van Experimenteel Gevonden
    Kwantitatieve bepaling van de invloed van experimenteel gevonden microstructurele veranderingen, geïnduceerd door neutronenstraling, op de hardheid van modellegeringen en staalsoorten Experimental Quantification of the Effect of Neutron Irradiation Induced Microstructural Changes on the Hardening of Model Alloys and Steels Marlies Lambrecht Promotoren: Prof. Dr. Ir. Y. Houbaert en Dr. A. Almazouzi Proefschrift ingediend tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de Ingenieurswetenschappen: Materiaalkunde Voorzitter: Prof. Dr. Ir. J. Degrieck Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen Academiejaar 2008-2009 ISBN 978-90-8578-294-0 NUR 971 Wettelijk depot: D/2009/10.500/52 Dit onderzoek werd uitgevoerd aan het onderzoekscentrum This research was performed at the research centre Structural Materials (NMA) group Laboratory for medium and high activity (LHMA) Nuclear Materials Science (NMS) Institute SCK•CEN Boeretang 200 2400 Mol Onder begeleiding van Under guidance of Dr. Abderrahim Almazouzi Dr. Lorenzo Malerba In samenwerking met In collaboration with Vakgroep Toegepaste Materiaalwetenschappen Faculteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen Universiteit Gent (UGent) Technologiepark 903 9053 Zwijnaarde Met promotor With promoter Prof. Dr. Ir. Yvan Houbaert Deels gefinancierd door Partially financed by FI60-CT-2003-5088-40 FP6_PERFECT project The European commision Foreword Foreword I really enjoyed realizing this PhD thesis! The results presented in this thesis are the outcome of a fruitful collaboration between the University of Ghent and the research centre SCK•CEN and I was the chosen one to accomplish the work. I hereby had the possibility to combine pleasure with work. The proposal laid within the scope of my interest, as I could approach engineering problems (the hardening and embrittlement of the RPV steels) using fundamental physics (the defects visualized by the positron technique in model alloys).
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Communicating Unwelcome Climate Messages
    The challenge of communicating unwelcome climate messages Dr Tim Rayner & Mr Asher Minns November 2015 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 162 The challenge of communicating unwelcome climate messages The Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia Tim Rayner - University of East Anglia [email protected] Asher Minns - University of East Anglia [email protected] Tyndall Working Paper 162, November 2015 Please note that Tyndall working papers are "work in progress". Whilst they are commented on by Tyndall researchers, they have not been subject to a full peer review. The accuracy of this work and the conclusions reached are the responsibility of the author(s) alone and not the Tyndall Centre. Tyndall Working Paper The Challenge of Communicating Unwelcome Climate Messages Tim Rayner Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia Asher Minns Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction: What unwelcome messages do we have to convey? ................................................... 4 2. To which ‘audiences’ are these unwelcome messages most relevant? ............................................. 7 3. The risks and opportunities of communicating
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Types[Edit]
    methods of control of rate of fusion reaction The only known way to control a fusion reaction is with an extremely strong and shaped/focused magnetic field. With today's technology we cannot yet make it strong enough. It breaks up in milliseconds after the reaction, stopping the reaction. types of nuclear materials Nuclear material refers to the metals uranium, plutonium, and thorium, in any form, according to the IAEA. This is differentiated further into "source material", consisting of natural and depleted uranium, and "special fissionable material", consisting of enriched uranium (U- 235), uranium-233, and plutonium-239. fissile and fertile materials Fertile material Fertile material is a material that, although not itself fissionable by thermal neutrons, can be converted into a fissile material by neutron absorption and subsequent nuclei conversions In nuclear engineering, fertile material (nuclide) is material that can be converted to fissile material by neutron. Nuclear reactors elements A nuclear reactor, formerly known as an atomic pile, is a device used to initiate and control a self- sustained nuclear chain reaction. Nuclear reactors are used at nuclear power plants for electricity generation and in nuclear marine propulsion. Heat from nuclear fission is passed to a working fluid (water or gas), which in turn runs through steam turbines. These either drive a ship's propellers or turn electrical generators' shafts. Nuclear generated steam in principle can be used for industrial process heat or for district heating. Some reactors are used to produce isotopes for medical and industrial use, or for production of weapons-grade plutonium. As of early 2019, the IAEA reports there are 454 nuclear power reactors and 226 nuclear research reactors in operation around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The UKERC/UKCCSC CARBON CAPTURE and STORAGE ROADMAP
    The UKERC/UKCCSC CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE ROADMAP nd Workshop Report, 1-2 May 2007 Prepared and organised by: Clair Gough Sarah Mander [email protected] UKCCSC / Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester Stuart Haszeldine [email protected] UK Energy Research Centre Jane Palmer UKERC Meeting Place, University of Oxford www.ukerc.ac.uk www.co2storage.org.uk www.tyndall.manchester.ac.uk/ Carbon Capture & Storage Road-Mapping Workshop 1st-2nd May 2007, Salisbury Green Hotel, Edinburgh 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 2. Key Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 5 3. Convenors Comments ..................................................................................................10 4. Roadmapping workshop process ....................................................................................12 4.1 Introduction - Stuart Haszeldine (University of Edinburgh) ...........................................12 4.2 Technical survey: Clair Gough (Tyndall Centre, The University of Manchester).................12 4.3 Road-mapping process: Sarah Mander (Tyndall Centre, The University of Manchester) .....13 5. Break-out group summaries..........................................................................................17 5.1. Summary of Station A: What climate change framework is required to support CCS deployment? ...............................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]