Nuclear Revival Dies in Committee

Nuclear Revival Dies in Committee

MAY 3, 2007 | No. 655 CALIFORNIA: NUCLEAR REVIVAL DIES IN COMMITTEE On April 16, a controversial bill that would have allowed the construction of nuclear power plants to resume in California died CALIFORNIA: NUCLEAR REVIVAL in committee before reaching the floor of the State Assembly. DIES IN COMMITTEE 1 This means that the attempt to lift the 30 year state ban died. STATUS OF THE PBMR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2 (655.5795) Alliance For Nuclear from electricity generation can be Responsibility - The bill, AB 719 achieved through energy efficiency CHERNOBYL DISEASE: STRESS (Devore), would have struck down programs and integrating renewable OR RADIATION? 3 California's 1976 Nuclear Safeguards energy resources -- solar, wind, thermal, Act, a moratorium on building nuclear biomass and hydropower-- into electricity MOORE NUCLEAR SPIN 4 power plants until a permanent solution supplies. to the storage of high-level radioactive DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL waste is developed. The Assembly's "The so-called nuclear renaissance and NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IN Natural Resources Committee, chaired the idea the nuclear power is the way to CHINA 5 by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, voted combat climate change is based on a tall - 4 to 2 to uphold the ban. Several stack of fallacies, unsupported by past IN BRIEF 9 members who expressed concern about experience or future promises," said lifting the ban were not there when the Rochelle Becker, Executive Director of vote was counted as they had conflicting the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, bills in other Committees. which spearheaded opposition to the Devore bill. "Just because nuclear power The California legislature enacted the proponents call their technology green, Nuclear Safeguards legislation to prohibit doesn't make it so," new plant construction because of the federal government's failure to create a "The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility central nuclear waste repository. Thirty- welcomes every opportunity to discuss one years later, no such solution exists issues of nuclear power and waste and approximately 75,000 tons of versus solutions to global warming that radioactive byproducts of nuclear power focus on efficiency and renewable energy generation have accumulated and are with Assemblyman Devore and all stored adjacent to the nation's rivers, members of our state legislature. We lakes and oceans awaiting disposal. anticipate the results of an upcoming study by the California Energy According the Resources Committee's Commission that will analyze the costs, analysis of the Devore bill, "the federal benefits and risks of continuing down a waste disposal program has been nuclear energy path will lead us to a plagued with technical and legal clearer understanding of where to invest challenges, managerial problems, our energy dollars," Becker said. licensing delays, persistent weaknesses in quality assurance for the program, and The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is increasing costs." an educational and advocacy organization that works with other The Devore bill claimed to address the environmental and policy groups to stop need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions nuclear power development and to curb global warming. According to the relicensing of aging nuclear facilities in California Energy Commission, the most California and promote create clean, significant reductions in CO2 emissions renewable and economic energy sources that will create jobs, provide energy Source and contact: Rochelle Becker U.S.A. independence and serve as a model for at Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Tel: +1 858 337-2703 other states and countries. PO Box 1328, Web: www.a4nr.org San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1328, STATUS OF THE PBMR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Much has been written about the construction of the PBMR in South Africa. However, many of those articles, including those in the Nuclear Monitor, focused on particular steps in the process and did not gave an overview of the status of the project. And since South-Africa is often mentioned by the pro-nuclear lobbyists as the place where the new generation nuclear reactors are actually being built, we now take the opportunity to give an update on the status of the project, using the April 2007 report "The status of the Pebble Bed Modular reactor development programme" by Steve Thomas. (655.5796) WISE Amsterdam - The on the demonstration plant could not into demonstration of functional integrity Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is start before late 2008 or early 2009. and demonstration of commercial a new design developed from two However, this still seems a performance. It lists 13 separate German designs, developed separately highly optimistic estimate. There has attributes that should be demonstrated. by Siemens and ABB. The nearest plant been no indication that the design of the Three of these will take at least three in design to the PBMR to be built was a demonstration plant is nearly complete. years to be partially demonstrated (plant demonstration plant in Germany, THTR Given also that no commercial availability, plant efficiency and 300, which was in service from 1983- agreement to fund the demonstration sustainability, operational and 1989. phase has been concluded, it seems maintenance cost, and first outage). 11 highly unlikely that a final design can be of them will take at least 7 years to be The PBMR has been under submitted to the NNR (the South African fully demonstrated (e.g., main power development in South Africa since about National Nuclear Regulator) before the system integrity and helium leakage 1993, although it was not until 1998 that end of 2007. If we allow two years as verification). Even if operation goes these efforts were publicized. Eskom the minimum time NNR could take entirely to plan and no problems formally took a license with a German before it allows construction to begin, emerge and we assume partial company, HTR, for pebble bed this places start of construction at the demonstration is a sufficient basis for technology in 1999. The terms of this start of 2010. A PBMR (Pty) Ltd commercial orders to be placed, this technology license have not been made spokesman has said that fuel load for means commercial orders could not be public and the technology license is not the demonstration plant would take placed before mid-2017, with first power discussed in the FEIR (Final place 48 months after construction start. from the first commercial plant in 2021. Environment Impact Report) or the DFS Allowing time for fuel load and other (Detailed Feasibility Study). However, tests, first power might take place about Conclusion typically, a technology license would 6 months later, at about mid-2014. This The record of the PBMR venture in give the licensor a fee based on units is now more than 10 years later than meeting time and cost deadlines is sold, some rights over the new was forecast when the PBMR program appalling. The estimated cost of the technology, and over the markets in was announced in 1998. So despite demonstration phase had escalated by which it could be sold. nearly 10 years of work, completion of a a factor of more than seven by 2005. It It was expected in 1998 that demonstration plant is further away than seems unlikely that when an updated work on construction of a demonstration it was when the program was version of this cost is produced, the cost plant would begin in 1999 and be announced. will not have risen again. complete before 2003 to allow The original plan was that The estimated time when commercial orders soon after. Eskom commercial orders would follow commercial orders could be placed has projected that the market would be immediately on from the completion of slipped from 2004 to probably no earlier about 30 units per year, about 20 of the demonstration plant. This begs the than 2020. which would be exported. In April 2000, question, what will have been There have been continual the South African Cabinet approved demonstrated at that point? Clearly promises that new foreign partners Eskom's continuation and completion of there will be some evidence on the would be brought in to the project to a Detailed Feasibility Study (DFS) on design process, the constructability of add expertise and share the risk but five the proposed PBMR. Subsequently, the design, and the cost of construction. years after Exelon withdrew, no new Eskom formed a company, PBMR (Pty) However, there will have been no partners have been recruited. Indeed, Ltd to develop and market the demonstration of the operation of the all the original partners have either technology. PBMR (Pty) Ltd foresaw plant. Given that the PBMR's nearest withdrawn or reduced their stake: four phases: research and development relative, the THTR-300 plant in Exelon withdrew in 2002; BNFL (already then completed), feasibility Germany failed after the demonstration contributed only 15 per cent of the costs study (then underway), demonstration, plant had started, this is an unjustifiable instead of the 22.5 per cent it was and commercial application. decision. contracted to contribute; IDC reduced its This issue was belatedly taken stake from 25 per cent to 13 per cent. It Possible time scales up in the Revised Final Environmental has now emerged that even Eskom, In March 2007, a PBMR (Pty) Ltd Scoping Report (RFESR) published in usually seen as a committed supporter spokesman admitted that construction January 2007. It divides 'demonstration' of the program was, as early as 2002, 2 NUCLEAR MONITOR 655 concerned about the riskiness of the South Africa could order with So there is no such thing as a venture and was looking for politically confidence. This is far from the case. Of 'conventional nuclear power reactor'. viable ways to withdraw from the the reactor designs being developed But is such a time-scale (online in 2014) project. and which are currently on offer, there realistic? If Eskom were to proceed with The program was launched on are only two obvious candidates: the the conventional nuclear option, it would the basis of it being an export project European Pressurized Water Reactor have to identify a site and open a call that would bring a stream of income to (EPR) offered by Areva; and the AP- for tenders.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    12 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us