ABB Dublin Marketing Plan Overview - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25
About This Presentation

ABB Dublin Marketing Plan Overview


Future of nuclear and of electric energy after Fukushima. Alessandro Clerici Honorary Chairman of FAST and WEC Italy Over the last 10 years the world nuclear energy ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:157
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Dere128


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ABB Dublin Marketing Plan Overview

Future of nuclear and of electric energy after
Fukushima. Alessandro Clerici Honorary Chairman
of FAST and WEC Italy
Global situation
  • Over the last 10 years the world nuclear energy
    production has been practically constant at about
    2600 TWh but loosing market shares, with the so
    called nuclear renaissance happening at the
    public perception front, where the major concerns
    after Chernobyl changed little by little from
    large accident to questions around final waste
    disposal / costs / Nimby.
  • The impact of the incident at the Fukushima
    Daiichi nuclear power plant, which resulted from
    the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami
    on March 11th, 2011 will have wide ranging
    consequences on the global energy mix ,following
    emotional reactions of governments and companies
    consequential to public opinion

  • Clearly we must recognize that a nuclear accident
    has a great impact on people due a radiation you
    do not see, you do not know if it has hit you,
    you do not know if or when it will effect your
  • The Fukushima impact has been larger than that of
    the Chernobyl disaster Japan is in fact
    considered a high-tech country and a very well
    organized one.

Last 10 years trend for electric energy
production from different sources
  • 2001 2010
  • Coal 38.7 41.7
  • Oil 7.4 64.7 4.2 66.6
  • Gas 18.6 20.7
  • Nuclear 17.1 13.4
  • Hydro 16.5 16.2
  • Biomasses 1.1 18.2 1.5 20
  • Other Renewables 0.6 2.3
  • Elaborations from IEA
  • Increase in of electricity from fossil fuels!
  • The increase of renewables does not overcome the
    decrease in of nuclear non CO2 sources loose
    market shares!

  • Fossil Fuels
  • Based on present proven resources (R) and actual
    production (P)
  • oil R/P 40 years
  • gas R/P 60 years
  • coal R/P 200 years
  • But resources for potential unconventional oil
  • oil shale (80 in USA)
  • natural bitumen (60 in Canada)
  • extra heavy oil (95 Venezuela)
  • are large and economic for stable oil prices
    above 90 US/bbl.
  • The boom of shale gas in North America
    possible global resources 4 times those of
    conventional gas.
  • The problem are not the resources but how to burn

  • Fossil fuels contribute worldwide for more than
    80 to the energy needs and 66 to electricity
    production through their combustion they are the
    main cause of GHG emissions, detrimental to the
    future of our planet.
  • To reduce both the consumption of the limited
    fossil resources, cumulated in millions of years,
    and the CO2 emissions, there are clearly 2 main
  • rationalization/reduction of energy
    consumptions(a key asset)
  • use of carbon free energy sources

(No Transcript)
Electric energy production in 2010
  • China 4230 TWh
  • US 4120 TWh
  • Japan 955 TWh
  • Russia 907 TWh
  • India 720 TWh
  • Canada 565 TWh
  • France 550 TWh
  • Germany 490 TWh

Source WNA
2 countries 40 global production and in great
majority from coal
The world nuclear situation at March 10, 2011
  • 442 reactors in operation in 30 countries for
    375 GW.
  • 65 reactors under construction in 16 countries
    (27 in China) for 63 GW with the exclusion of
    the Japanese ABWR, all the others are PWR
  • Implementation of life extension up to 50 60
    years for old reactors in operation in many
    countries (cheap kWh, no CO2 emissions).
  • A nuclear renaissance was envisaged by many
    stakeholders due to
  • Volatile and expected future high prices for
    fossil fuels
  • Environmental concerns for CO2 emission and its
  • Security of supply
  • with 158 new reactors planned and 326 proposed in
    47 countries (from WNA)

(No Transcript)
The post Fukushima
  • Out of the existing 30-plus countries that have
    nuclear energy programs, a few countries appear
    to have experienced the most profound public
    reactions and public policy changes Japan,
    Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. The most
    significant development has been in Germany where
    the government shut down the seven oldest nuclear
    power plants within a few days following the
    Fukushima event in addition to the one plant that
    was temporarily offline due to technical reasons.
    The German government has decided to keep these
    8 facilities closed permanently while it is
    accelerating its plans to phase out all of its
    remaining nuclear power plants stepwise by 2022
    (Germany has 26 electricity from nuclear).

Notes (1) Assessment of safety installations
(incorporating lessons learned) (2) expected
closure of the five nuclear power plant units
between 2019 and 2034 (after the end of
approximately 50 years of operating time) (3)
immediate shutdown of 8 nuclear installations
following the Fukushima event and phased-out
closure of remaining power plants as fast as
possible, independently from safety aspects (4)
possible partial modification of safety standards
or licensing procedures.
  • In regions and countries that have long held
    ambivalent to negative opinions on nuclear energy
    and its safety, the Fukushima accident will serve
    as an additional example of why to oppose it and
    local, national, and regional politics will
    prevail over the longer-time frame.
  • There will also be an increase of not in my
    backyard mentality, with the general public not
    wanting facilities/plants in their immediate
    vicinity or neighbourhood. In particular, these
    will be a larger issue for those living in areas
    vulnerable to natural disasters.
  • Possible increased cost of NPPs for increased
    security / safety rules, longer permission times
    and increased costs of risks insurances.

  • Those in favour of nuclear energy will call for
    improved safety procedures and plans and point
    out that the global community can learn from
    Fukushima this according to the history of
    nuclear power of constant improvement and
    technological development based on lessons
    learned both by vendors and owners that operate
  • This has been the inspiration to vendors for the
    so-called Generation III reactors, currently
    being built in several countries. These new
    reactors have typically a 60 year design life, a
    higher than 90 availability, a 12-24 month fuel
    cycle, a 10-7 probability of radiation releases
    with no external effect, a very low occupational
    radiation exposure , capability to withstand
    impact of large airplanes .

WEC Member Committees Survey
  • A WEC member survey shows that most countries
    that have existing nuclear power installations
    believe that their own national nuclear authority
    is independent, resourced, transparent, and
    empowered with enforcement. But most respondents
    also answered with a lot of uncertainty with
    regard to the perception of other countries
    nuclear governance.
  • While there seems to be relatively high political
    support for the adoption and convergence of
    international safety regulations, there seems to
    be comparatively lower political support for the
    international enforcement of safety standards.
  • The response has been unanimous that the media
    affects the public discourse of nuclear energy
    the most.
  • The most pressing barrier for the future of
    nuclear has been identified as public perception,
    followed by lack of policy. Skills shortage was
    not deemed a major barrier.

  • When asked about the potential for substitution
    fuels, gas has emerged as the clear winner
    globally, (and to a less extent coal) with
    biomass being a strong contender. Wind and FV are
    only mentioned in countries with high potential.
  • Higher electricity prices have been deemed as the
    most direct implication of nuclear substitution,
    with energy security concerns and higher GHG
    emissions also highlighted by many countries.
  • The real looser could be not nuclear but final
    consumers and the environment
  • Regional analysis further shows that the
    perception of nuclear safety in developing
    countries has not changed significantly compared
    to developed countries.

Consequences for shutdown of NPPs
  • As an extreme and unrealistic case the shutdown
    of the present 2,600 TWh production worldwide
    from nuclear plants would mean
  • additional consumption of 700 MTEP/year of fossil
    fuels ( more than 25 of present global gas
  • additional emissions of 2 bt CO2 / per year.

Governance of nuclear risks
  • Risk profiles are reactor dependent and site
    dependent and therefore response capabilities
    will have to be different, which makes
    discussions about minimum safety standards
  • National boundaries are irrelevant when
    considering the impact of nuclear incidents and
    there is still room for improvement of
    international governance arrangements.
    Currently, nuclear governance rests with nation
    states, along with a limited level of oversight
    provided by the International Atomic Energy
    Agency (IAEA) and peer review arrangements such
    as WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators).

  • In all cases the sovereignty of the state
    supersedes that of IAEA who with WANO can operate
    only through peer reviews/ consensus and
    technical support and access to a global library
    of operating experience.
  • Under the existing system of nuclear governance
    there is clear need to strengthen global
    regulation of nuclear energy.
  • In line with this train of thoughts, the
    following points were highlighted by the WEC
    nuclear task force.

Recommendations from WEC
  • Standards - National Nuclear Safety Agencies must
    adopt the IAEAs minimum safety operation,
    maintenance, and transparency standards,
    including site location parameters, and training
  • Verification - The IAEA should be empowered to
    work with each enhanced National Nuclear Safety
    Agency to verify adherence to the IAEAs minimum
    safety standards. Such verification should be
    publicly available to enhance transparency.
  • Design - The IAEA should produce an international
    accreditation standard for reactor design.
  • Finance - Funding mechanisms should be revised to
    ensure compliance.
  • Structure At national and international level
    there should be unbundle of responsibilities for
    promotion and safety to reduce the potential for
    conflicts of interest.
  • Given their accountability, under the United
    Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency
    (IAEA) is the most practical organisation to
    achieve the required improvements in global
    governance for the nuclear energy sector.
    Governments, working through the United Nations,
    must therefore empower the IAEA.

The Pros and Cons still remain
  • PROS
  • No CO2 emissions
  • No volatile cost of kWh and very interesting
    value in medium/long time perspective due to
    expected high costs of fossil fuels and CO2
  • Independency from foreign fuels and security of
  • Possible contribution to elimination of nuclear
  • Wave of innovation fall-out on local industry
    during construction and technological
    qualification of companies
  • Volatile renewables need back up capacity and
    programmable production and nuclear is the only
    CO2 free source (nuclear and RES are not in
    competition but complementary)

The Pros and Cons still remain
  • CONS
  • Fear of large accidents, with global
    consequences due to human errors, natural
    events, terrorism
  • Acceptability and times for authorizations
  • Financing of merchant plants without government
  • Deposits of nuclear waste and plant
  • The future is of RES
  • Doubts on Uranium actual reserves

(No Transcript)
  • Key variables that will affect global public
    perception of nuclear energy going forward
  • The ability of the Japanese government, the
    nuclear industry, and the Fukushima facility to
    deal with the aftermath.
  • The short- and long-term effects on the local
  • Another disaster.

Thank you for your attention.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)