DOCSLIB.ORG

Generation 3 Nuclear Reactors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generation 3 Nuclear Reactors GenerationGeneration 33 NuclearNuclear ReactorsReactors FrenchFrench-- SlovakSlovak summersummer schoolschool TheThe differentdifferent generationsgenerations ofof nuclearnuclear reactorsreactors FromFrom GenerationGeneration--11 toto GenerationGeneration--44 G. Cognet CEA Delegate for Central Europe Nuclear Counsellor – French Embassy CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 1 NuclearNuclear energyenergy inin thethe worldworld EUROPE ASIA + RUSSIA NORTH AMERICA 177 reactors 131 reactors 120 reactors Ukraine Candidats Chine Mexique Taiwan Suisse Arménie Canada Inde Japon Corée États-unis UE-25 Russie SOUTH AMERICA 4 reactors Afrique du Sud Argentine Brésil 2 réacteurs CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 2 NuclearNuclear :: aa veryvery concentratedconcentrated energyenergy 1 kg of natural uranium yields 100 000 kWh in a thermal fission reactor while 1 kg of coal generates 8 kWh, i.e. 12500 times less The first nuclear reactor was a natural one (Oklo, 2 billion years ago). CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 3 TheThe treetree ofof nuclearnuclear reactorsreactors •WPu: Military plutonigenous reactor. •SGHWR: Heavy water reactors supplying industrial heat (Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor). •AGR: Graphite-gas reactors (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor). •(V)HTR: (Very) High Temperature Reactor. •SCWR: Super Critical Water Reactor. • ADS: Hybrid spallation- fission system (Accelerator- Driven System). •FR: Fast Reactor. •MSR: (Molten Salt Reactor). CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 4 TypesTypes ofof GenGen--22 reactorsreactors PWR Two main types of water reactor coexist: pressurized water reactors (PWR) and boiling water reactors (BWR) CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 5 CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 6 SafetySafety principleprinciple ofof PWRsPWRs Three barriers and 3 safety functions ¾ Control of the chain reaction ¾ Evacuation at any moment of the residual power (energy produced in the core at the level of a few % after stopping the chain reaction) ¾ Containment of radioactivity, the main part of this relating to the fission products formed in the fuel CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 7 GenGen--22 :: OptimizationOptimization && EvolutionEvolution ofof thethe FleetFleet ¾ Competitiveness improvement : 10% less of kWh production cost ¾ Increase of the availability factor and of core management ¾ Increase of life-time from 30 or 40 up to 50 or 60 years ¾ Reactor safety improvement (evolution, for example: H2 recombiners) ¾ Reduction of the radiological impact ¾ Optimization of spent fuel management ¾ Seismic risks: take into account new rules ¾ Ageing of structures 9 Containment structure 9 Steam generator 9 Pressurizer 9 Circuits (primary loop) 9 Internals 9 Vessel CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 8 Simulation tools for nuclear systems Simulation : - multi-physical, multi-scale modelling - co-developed numerical platforms ECHELLE SYSTEME ECHELLE 3D-LOCAL ECHELLE COMPOSANT ECHELLE SIMULATION NUMERIQUE DIRECTE CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 9 FuelFuel CycleCycle CEA – DelegationCEA – Delegation for Central for Europe Central & Eastern Europe - BudapestKočovce (Slovakia) – September March, 2010 2010 10 Conditioning of ultimate waste Glass casting in the laboratory at Standard vitrified Marcoule (Gard) waste container (SVWC) CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 11 TwoTwo majormajor accidentsaccidents Tchernobyl (1986) TMI2 (1979) CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 12 TheThe INESINES scalescale ofof nuclearnuclear eventsevents (1991) CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 13 GenerationsGenerations ofof NuclearNuclear PowerPower SystemsSystems 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Generation I DISMANTLING UNGG Generation II OPERATION CHOOZ REP 900 Generation III OPTIMIZATION REP 1300 EPR Generation IV DESIGN & R&D N4 PROTOTYPES 2020-25 COEX DIAMEX/SANEX, GANEX CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 14 EUR:EUR: EuropeanEuropean utilitiesutilities requirementsrequirements EUR: a hub to harmonise European utilities views & requirements ¾ A utility network 9 to share experience in plant specification, design evaluation, licensing … 9 to build common specifications for the European Gen 3 LWR NPPs ¾ A common bridge with the external stakeholders 9the vendors 9the EUR utility counterparts outside Europe: EPRI, Asian utilities,… 9the regulators: safety, HV grid, … 9the international organisations: IAEA, OECD, EU, … ¾ Making Gen 3 a reality in Europe CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 15 TheThe EUREUR documentdocument CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 16 EUR:EUR: aa strongstrong basebase forfor harmonisationharmonisation && standardisationstandardisation ofof thethe designsdesigns ¾ Continuous activity over more than 15 years has made the EUR organisation one of the central actors in the development Gen 3 LWRs in Europe and worldwide ¾ In its current stage the EUR document is fully operational ¾ Actually used as technical specification to call for bids ¾ Actually used by the NPP vendors willing to be present in Europe, as a guide for designing their new products ¾ A living document living document that follows up the progress of technology and the constraints coming from Europe integration CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 17 MainMain ObjectivesObjectives ofof GenGen--III/III+III/III+ ReactorsReactors ¾ Standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time ¾ Simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets ¾ Higher availability and longer operating life – typically 60 years ¾ Reduced possibility of core melt accidents ¾ Minimal effect on the environment ¾ Higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste ¾ Burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life The greatest departure from Gen-II incorporates passive or inherent safety features which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 18 EPR:EPR: aa maturedmatured concept,concept, basedbased onon experienceexperience feedfeed-- backback ofof currentcurrent PWRsPWRs Containment Containment Heat designed to Removal System withstand hydrogen deflagration Prevention of high pressure core melt by depressurisation means In Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) Spreading Area Protection of the Basemat CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 19 EPR:EPR: thethe firstfirst GenGen--33 licensedlicensed inin EuropeEurope The Path of Greatest Certainty 1650 MWe PWR X Generation III+ PWR 4-Loop >4500MWth SG pressure 77bar at 100% power 4x100% redundancy of active safeguard systems Backup in case of total loss of safety function X High power output (1650 MWe) X Evolutionary design (Konvoi/N4) X Low global power generation costs X Outstanding safety level X Maximized benefit from size effect TheConstruction Path to Greatest in Finland, Certainty France & China Licensing engaged in USA, UK and India CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 20 EPREPR PlotPlot PlanPlan Safeguard Buildings 2+3 Diesel Turbine Building Generators 3-4 Reactor Building Building Safeguard Building 1 Fuel Building C.I. Electrical Building Diesel Generators 1-2 Nuclear Building Auxiliary Safeguard Building 4 Building Waste Building CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 21 EPREPR SafetySafety Systems:Systems: BestBest--inin--classclass APCAPC resistanceresistance Prestressed 1,8 m thick Annulus Concrete Reinforced 1,8 m Containment Concrete Building Shield Building Steel Liner Outside Inside BASEMAT EPR™ Reactor, Fuel and two Safeguard Buildings are airplane crash resistant for both military and commercial aircraft: - No licensing delay - Bolstering public and political acceptance CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 22 EPREPR SafetySafety Systems:Systems: RedundantRedundant andand DiverseDiverse ¾ 4×100% capacity allows for preventive 3 4 maintenance at power (n+2 concept) 2 ¾ Common cause failures – safety system diversity: 9 Every system has a diversified back-up 1 ¾ External hazards through systematic Four Train concept physical separation of the safety systems and physical separation ¾ Clear separation of redundancies with 4 Safeguard buildings ensures robustness against hazards (flooding, fire) and Airplane Crash ¾ Reactor building, Safeguard buildings Proven yet evolutionary and Fuel building on a single raft to cope safety systems ensure a with seismic and Airplane Crash loads high reliability level P19 –S1 CEA – Delegation for Central Europe Kočovce (Slovakia) – September 2010 23 EPREPR SafetySafety Systems:Systems: ProtectionProtection ofof thethe environmentenvironment withwith PassivePassive andand ActiveActive SystemsSystems Active System (Long-term) Passive System (Short-term)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Reactors' Construction Costs
    Nuclear reactors’ construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress Lina Escobar Rangel and Michel Berthélemy Mines ParisTech - Centre for Industrial Economics CERNA International WPNE Workshop Project and Logistics Management in Nuclear New Build NEA Headquarters - Issy les Moulineaux, 11th March 2014 Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at Hinkley Point and Sizewell Hitachi → 2 or 3 new nuclear reactors at Wylfa and Oldbury NuGeneration → 3.6GW of new nuclear capacity at Moorside Fast-growing economies: China, India China has 28 reactors under construction and it is planned a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030 16 AP1000 reactors are planned to start to be constructed from 2014-2018 At least 6 ACC1000 in 4 different locations 2 EPRs in Guangdong Other technologies like VVER-1000, VVER-1200, CNP-600, etc are also envisioned Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at
    [Show full text]
  • From Gen I to Gen III
    From Gen I to Gen III Gabriel Farkas Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Ilkovicova 3, 81219 Bratislava [email protected] 14. 9. 2010 1 Evolution of Nuclear Reactors Generation I - demonstration reactors Generation II - working in the present Generation III - under construction 14. 9. 2010 2 Generation IV - R&D 14. 9. 2010 3 Expected development in nuclear technologies Prolongation of lifetieme of existing nuclear reactors Construction of new reactors in frame of Gen. III and IV . Figure 1 Replacement staggered over a 30-year period (2020 - 2050) Rate of construction : 2,000 MW/year 70000 60000 Lifetime 50000 prolongation 40000 Generation IV 30000 Actual reactors 20000 Generation III+ 10000 0 197519801985199019952000200520102015202020252030203520402045205020552060 14. 9. 2010 Average plant life : 48 years 4 Nuclear in Europe (Nuclear ~ 32% of total EU electricity production) SE, 7.3% UK, 7.9% SP, 5.8% BE,4.8% CZ, 2.5% GE, 16.3% FI, 2.4% BU, 1.8% Other 12.4% SK, 1.7% HU, 1.4% LT, 1.1% FR, 45.5% SI, 0.6% NL, RO, 0.5% 0.4% Source PRIS 14. 9. 2010 5 Central & Eastern Europe - Nuclear Landscape Russia Lithuania Ukraine 6 VVER440 Poland 1 RBMK 1300 2 VVER440 8 VVER1000 Min. of Energy 13 VVER1000 NNEGC State owned 11 RBMK 1 BN600 4 Graph Mod BWR Czech Republic Rosenergoatom State 4 VVER440 owned 2 VVER1000 CEZ/ 67% State Romania owned 2 Candu PHW Nuclearelectrica State owned Slovak Republic 4/6 VVER440 Bulgaria ENEL 67% owned 2/4 VVER1000 NEC State owned Hungary Armenia 4 VVER 440 1 VVER440 MVM State owned Armatomenergo, State owned 14.
    [Show full text]
  • The EPR™ Reactor
    The EPR™ reactor the reference for New Build - © Photo credits: AREVA - EDF - TNPJVC - Tracy FAVEYRIAL - Elodie FERRARE - René QUATRAIN - Charlène MOREAU - Image et Process - Image - Charlène MOREAU QUATRAIN - Elodie FERRARE René FAVEYRIAL - Tracy - EDF TNPJVC AREVA credits: - © Photo April 2014 - design and production: April 2014 - design and production: The value of experience With 4 EPR™ reactors being built in 3 different countries, AREVA can leverage an unparalleled experience in licensing and construction to deliver high-performance new-generation projects to nuclear utilities all over the world. Olkiluoto 3, Best practices from continuous Finland project experience The most advanced new-generation Licensing experience with different regulators: project in the The only reactor with 5 separate licensing processes world underway worldwide • Construction licenses granted in Finland, France and China • Full Design Acceptance Confirmation awarded in the United Kingdom • Licensing review underway in the United States Flamanville 3, The only Gen3+ reactor design submitted to the European France “post-Fukushima” stress tests The first reactor in the new EDF’s EPR™ fleet Project management excellence • The largest in-house nuclear Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) team: - More than 1,000 project management skilled people - 6,000+ Engineering and Project experienced workforce • Most Taishan Project Directors have worked on Taishan 1 and 2, Olkiluoto 3 or Flamanville 3 projects China EPR™ projects on track to be delivered Company-wide
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of New Nuclear Power Plants in France
    The cost of new nuclear power plants in France SFEN TECHNICAL NOTE – MARCH 2018 SFEN TECHNICAL NOTE – MARCH 2018 The French Nuclear Energy Society (SFEN) is the French knowledge hub for nuclear energy. Created in 1973, the SFEN provides a place where French and International specialists, and all those with an interest in nuclear energy and its applications, can obtain and share information. The SFEN brings together 4000 professio- nals in industry, education and research. The SFEN’s contribution to France’s Multi-Year Energy Plan (Programmation pluriannuelle de l’énergie) The cost of new nuclear power plants in France Executive Summary & Recommendations SFEN TECHNICAL NOTE – MARCH 2018 Guaranteeing the nuclear option for 2050 With its June 2017 Climate Change Plan (Plan Climat), France has set a greenhouse gas emissions neutrality target for 2050. France currently relies on nuclear and renewable energy for generating low-carbon elec- tricity, with one of the most competitive supplies in Europe. France is committed to diversifying its energy mix at a pace that will depend on several factors which are not yet fully clear: the characteristics of demand, the technical and economic performance of the different technologies (renewable energy, storage, smart grids), as well as the energy strategies of its European neighbours, as part of an increas- ingly interconnected electricity system. In the short-term, continued operation of existing nuclear reactors (‘Grand carénage’ refurbishment programme) will provide France with low-carbon electricity, produced locally and at a competitive price. In the long-term, between 2030 and 2050, France is expected to progressively replace part of its existing nuclear fleet by new means of production.
    [Show full text]
  • The EPR - a Safe and Competitive Solution for Future Energy Needs
    International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2006 Portorož, Slovenia, September 18-21, 2006 http://www.djs.si/port2006 The EPR - A Safe and Competitive Solution for Future Energy Needs Rüdiger Leverenz AREVA NP GmbH Freyeslebenstr. 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany [email protected] Introduction In 2002, the Finnish Government gave the go-ahead for construction of the country's fifth nuclear power plant unit. In December of 2003, the AREVA NP/Siemens Consortium was awarded a turnkey contract by the Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) to build a new nuclear power plant at the Olkiluoto site where two boiling water reactor units are already in operation. "Olkiluoto 3" [1][2] is an EPR, and thus the world’s very first third- generation nuclear power plant under construction. The reactor is being supplied by AREVA NP, the turbine and generator by Siemens. AREVA NP, which is head of the consortium, is responsible for overall project management as well as technical and functional integration. Figure 1: Affordable climate protection: the EPR (foreground) at Olkiluoto in Finland is to start producing electricity in 2009. AREVA: Power is Our Core Business With manufacturing facilities in 40 countries and a sales network in more than 100, AREVA offers customers reliable technological solutions for CO2-free power generation and electricity transmission and distribution. AREVA is the world leader in nuclear power and the only company to cover all industrial activities in this field (from uranium mining, processing 409.1 409.2 and enrichment as well as fuel manufacture, through reactor construction and services to reprocessing of used fuel).
    [Show full text]
  • Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants
    Nuclear Development June 2011 www.oecd-nea.org Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY Nuclear Development Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants © OECD 2011 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Foreword Nuclear power plants are used extensively as base load sources of electricity. This is the most economical and technically simple mode of operation. In this mode, power changes are limited to frequency regulation for grid stability purposes and shutdowns for safety purposes. However for countries with high nuclear shares or desiring to significantly increase renewable energy sources, the question arises as to the ability of nuclear power plants to follow load on a regular basis, including daily variations of the power demand. This report considers the capability of nuclear power plants to follow load and the associated issues that arise when operating in a load following mode. The report was initiated as part of the NEA study “System effects of nuclear power”. It provided a detailed analysis of the technical and economic aspects of load-following with nuclear power plants, and summarises the impact of load-following on the operational mode, fuel performance and ageing of large equipment components of the plant. 3 Acknowledgements Valuable comments and contributions were received from Mr. Philippe Lebreton, Electricité de France, Dr. Holger Ludwig, Areva GMBH, Dr. Michael Micklinghoff, E.ON Kernkraft and Dr. M.A.Podshibyakin, OKB “GIDROPRESS”. This report was prepared by Dr. Alexey Lokhov of the NEA Nuclear Development Division. Detailed review and comments were provided by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Nuclear Power
    Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Juan S. Giraldo Douglas J. Gotham David G. Nderitu Paul V. Preckel Darla J. Mize State Utility Forecasting Group December 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... v Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Current state of nuclear power generation in the U.S. ......................................... 1 1.2 Nuclear power around the world ........................................................................... 4 2. Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 How nuclear power plants generate electricity ..................................................... 9 2.2 Radioactive decay .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document Rev. 18
    1. Introduction and General Description of Plant AP1000 Design Control Document 1.9 Compliance with Regulatory Criteria 1.9.1 Regulatory Guides Regulatory guides are issued by the NRC in the following 10 broad divisions: • Division 1 - Power Reactors • Division 2 - Research and Test Reactors • Division 3 - Fuels and Materials Facilities • Division 4 - Environmental and Siting • Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection • Division 6 - Products • Division 7 - Transportation • Division 8 - Occupational Health • Division 9 - Antitrust and Financial Review • Division 10 - General Divisions 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the regulatory guides do not apply to the design and design certification phase of AP1000. The following sections provide a summary discussion of NRC Divisions 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the regulatory guides applicable to the design and design certification phase of AP1000. Appendix 1A provides a discussion of AP1000 regulatory guide conformance. 1.9.1.1 Division 1 Regulatory Guides - Power Reactors Currently there are approximately 190 Division 1 regulatory guides that have been issued by the NRC for implementation or for comment. Appendix 1A provides an evaluation of the degree of AP1000 compliance with NRC Division 1 regulatory guides. The revisions of the regulatory guides against which AP1000 is evaluated are indicated. Any exceptions or alternatives to the provisions of the regulatory guides are identified and justification is provided. For those regulatory guides applicable to the AP1000 Table 1.9-1 identifies the appropriate DCD cross-references. The cross-referenced sections contain descriptive information applicable to the regulatory guide positions found in Appendix 1A. The superseded or canceled regulatory guides are not considered in Appendix 1A or Table 1.9-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Estimates and Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Newbuild: Literature Survey and Some Modeling Analysis
    IAEE Energy Forum / Groningen Special Issue Cost Estimates and Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Newbuild: Literature Survey and Some Modeling Analysis BY Ben Wealer, Claudia Kemfert, Clemens GerBaulet, and Christian von hirsChhausen Introduction the current newbuild projects: in China by majority-owned The authors are with The perspectives of nuclear power deployment in the German Institute Chinese companies, in Korea the long-term depend very much on the development for Economic Research by the state-owned KEPCO, of costs, in relation to other low-carbon options, and (DIW Berlin), where they or in Russia by state-owned the economics of investments into new capacities. are part of a long-term Rosatom. Near-term future While there is a consensus in the literature that research program on deployment in the “West” nuclear power is not competitive under regular nuclear energy, run currently consists of the EPR or jointly with Workgroup market economy, competitive conditions1, at least the AP1000. But, especially the for Infrastructure two issues need to be considered going forward. EPR could never meet its high Policy at the Berlin First, the evolution of future technologies, and expectations and today all three University of Technology. second, the treatment of “costs” in other, non-market construction projects are well Corresponding Author: institutional contexts, such as indigenous suppliers Ben Wealer: bw@ behind schedule and well over or “home suppliers” or the new (heavily subsidized) wip.tu-berlin.de, their initial cost estimate. In the export models of countries like China or Russia. The [email protected]. For U.S, no Gen III/III+ has finished objective of this paper is to provide insights into the other publications, construction too economics of nuclear power for electricity generation see: https://www.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power for Institutional Investor Use Only
    November 2008 The Economics of Nuclear Power For Institutional Investor Use Only. This article was reprinted with permission by World Nuclear Association. Note: Not all products, materials or services available at all firms. Advisors, please contact your home office. Shares are not FDIC insured, may lose value and have no bank guarantee. Shares are not individually redeemable and owners of the shares may acquire those shares from the Funds and tender those shares for redemption to the Funds in Creation Unit aggregations only, typically consisting of 100,000 shares. Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc. is the distributor of the PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust I, the PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, the PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust and the PowerShares India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust . PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC. Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC and Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc. are indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of Invesco Ltd. Invesco Aim and Invesco PowerShares do not warrant or guarantee the information provided by World Nuclear Association and World Nuclear Association is not affiliated with Invesco Aim or Invesco PowerShares. An investor should consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses carefully before investing. For this and more complete information about the Funds call 800.983.0903 or visit the website www.invescopowershares.com for a prospectus. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. The Economics of Nuclear Power Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Whatever Happened to the Nuclear Renaissance?
    THE ENERGY INDUSTRY TIMES - OCTOBER 2017 Industry Perspective 13 Whatever happened to the nuclear renaissance? arly in the 21st century, the nuclear power plants are located in Despite numerous term “nuclear renaissance” North America and the European setbacks and Eentered our lexicon. The fu- Union, in some Western countries, ture of nuclear power looked bright- such as Germany and Austria, anti- challenges, some er than ever in the West, as fossil nuclear activism has kept public sup- fuel prices rose and concern over port for nuclear low for some time, argue the nuclear global warming grew in the public’s with anti-nuclear sentiments exacer- consciousness. bated by the Fukushima Daiichi inci- renaissance is far Riding the wave of new-found en- dent in Japan. Switzerland has an- thusiasm for nuclear power, plans nounced that it is phasing out its from dead. were made to deploy new units in nuclear programme, and even long- Europe and in the United States us- time nuclear supporter France has re- Elina Teplinsky and ing a new generation of nuclear reac- cently announced that it will be re- tor designs like Areva’s EPR design ducing its reliance on nuclear energy. Vince Zabielski and Westinghouse’s AP1000. In Eu- Making things even more difficult rope, construction of the first EPR for those countries with plans to pur- began in 2005 at Olkiluoto in Fin- sue new nuclear, Austria has vowed land, followed in 2007 by another to fight any new nuclear projects EPR unit at Flamanville in France. anywhere in the European Union, In the United States, two AP1000 and has challenged the state aid units commenced limited construc- granted to the Hinkley Point C proj- tion at Plant Vogtle (Georgia) in ect in the UK.
    [Show full text]