Title: The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium
1The Future of Nuclear EnergyforElectricity
Generation in Belgium
- W. Dhaeseleer University of Leuven
Energy-Institute
2Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity
Generation in Belgium
3Orders of magnitude Belgian electricity system
(2000)
- Installed power ? 16 000 MWe
- Peak power (winter) ? 12 à 13 GWe
- Min power (summer) ? 7 GWe
- Electricity consumption ? 80 TWhe
4Present Situation Nuclear Energy in Belgium
- Installed capacity 5700 MWe
- Commercial nuclear electricity generation 50 à
60 of 80 TWhe - Power Plants
- Doel 1, 2 2 400 MWe Tihange 1
900 MWe Doel 3, 4 2 1000 MWe
Tihange 2, 3 2 1000 MWe
5Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario
6Co-generation (CHP)
7Cogeneration potential in Belgium
- Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE)
- PPS gt 5 w.r.t. separate generation
- Only Pe gt 85 kW
- No district heating
- Energetic potential 4000 MWe 500 MWe
economic potential 2700 MWe 400 MWe - market potential 2000 MWe 300 MWe
- Remaining mkt potential 1000 MWe 500 MWe
8Renewable EnergyPotential Solar PV
- Theoretically 3000 TWh/a at 10
efficiency - 100 km2 via roofs, streets, ...
- gt 10 20 TWh/a technical pot
- gt 7.6 GW installed
- Problem day/night cycle seasons
-
9Renewable EnergyPotential Wind on shore
- Theoretical potential
- - 340 TWh/a total- 190 TWh/a gt 5 m/s- 50 TWh/a
gt 6 m/s - 5 surface- 16 TWh/a total technical- 9.5
TWh/a gt 5 m/s- 2.5 TWh/a gt 6 m/s
10Renewable Energy Potential Wind on shore
- Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen,
TEE, Van Leuven) - Prognosis Commission Ampere 1 à 2 TWh
11Renewable EnergyPotential Wind off shore
- 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast
- 1000 MW installed
- 3 TWh
12Renewable EnergyHydro
- Theoretical potential 0.6 TWh/a
- Technical potential 0.4 TWh/a
- Already 0.3 TWh in use
13Renewable EnergyGeneration Cost
- PV cells 15 25 BEF/kWh
- Wind 2 5 BEF/kWh (or more)
- Biomass 2 6 BEF/kWh (or more)
- Hydro 3.6 11 BEF/kWh
- Need green certificates to come to some sort of
pseudo-economical potential
14Renewable EnergyTotal Technical Potential
- Total electricity consumption Belgium 80 TWh
(1998) perhaps 100 TWh (2020) - Total renewable max 8TWh
- 3 4 TWh realistic (horizon 2020)
- Without waste fraction 2 3 TWh
15 Nuclear Power
- well designed nuclear plants very reliable safe
- - new generation of plants even safer (AP600,
ABWR, System 80, EPR,) - - interesting new concepts (GT-MHTR)
- - generation iv (Gen-iv)
- Nuclear fuel only valuable for electricity
production - Nuclear route without GHG emission
- Unreasonable fear of nuclear waste ionizing
radiation - Nuclear power not perfect, but quite valuable
16Nuclear power contd
- New nuclear power stations
- Nuclear plants are capital intensive
- - long Pay Back Time
- Uncertainty for investors
- - electricity markets preference for short PBT
- - pressure from public opinion policy makers
- (NIMTO, NIMBY, BANANA))
17 Nuclear power contd New power stations contd
- Attitude of utility executives
- - struggle for life cost cutting predominant
- - no long term responsibility for electricity
provision - - no longer guaranteed delivery produced
electricity - - political climate (Sweden, Germany, Belgium)
- - but reverse evolution in Finland and France
- - if nuclear plant proposed today,
- no guarantee to get operation
license
18 Nuclear power contd New power stations contd
- Presently only expansion in Far East
- - transfer of know how West ? East
- - later, well import from Japan!
19Nuclear power contd
- Existing Nuclear Plants
- Continue to operate good power stations
- - clean bill of health on safety aspects
- - positive contribution to GHG-issue
- - economically competitive
20Nuclear power contd Existing nuclear plants
contd
- No predetermined design life power station
- - original estimates based on guess for
thermal transients - - all components replaceable but safety level
to be kept - - ten-yearly overhaul
- - translated in economic price tag
21Nuclear power contd Existing nuclear plants
contd
- No technical arguments for premature closure
- but in a democracy, government can impose
limitations - Careful with subtle opposition against further
operation - - delays heavy administration for permits
replacements/modifications - - heavy procedures for transport management
of nuclear waste
22Nuclear power contd
- Uncertainties for energy efficiency renewables
- necessary to keep nuclear technology
- - replace present generation by future
generation - - re-activate improve breeding concept
- necessary to invest in development alternative
concepts - - GT-MHTR, ADS
- necessary to keep investing in RD nuclear
fusion research - - unexhaustible and clean source
- - given political will, almost certain to succeed
23CO2 emissionsdue to electricity generation
24Climate and Human Activity
- Conclusions Ampere climate expert
- There is little doubt that the measured increase
ofthe CO2-eq emissions lead to an enhanced
greenhouse effect
25Climate and Human Activity
- Conclusions consistent with
- IPCC 2-nd assess. The balance of evidence
suggests - a discernible human influence on
- global climate
- IPCC 3-rd assess. In the light of new evidence
most of the - observed warming up over the last 50 years
- is likely (chance gt 0.66 - 0.90) to have been
- due to the increase in GHG concentrations
26GHG reductions Kyoto Protocol
27Climate and Human Activity
- Further Ampere observations
- Kyoto Protocol will have negligible impact
- We will not be able to prevent global warming
we will have to prepare for adaptation - Kyoto is only the beginning later, much more
stringent reductions will be necessary
28Climate and Human Activity
-
- CO2 emissions in EU constant between
1990-1996 - but, Germany DDR UK massive
switch coal ? gas - CO2 emissions in Belgium 13,7 between
1990-1996
29CO2 emissions due to electricity generation
- Preliminary figures
- 1996 for Belgium 150 Mt GHG
- 130 Mt CO2
- 118 Mt CO2 due to combustion
- 22 Mt CO2 electricity generation
- ? CO2 electricity generation lt 20 CO2 due to
combustion - European average 30
-
30Emission scenariosPromix
- Promix simulation till 2012
- Nuclear generation frozen
- IEA fuel prices
- No tax (energy, nor CO2)
- Demand evolution
- A 2 /a till 2005 1.5 /a till 2012
- B 0.5 /a till 2005 0 /a till 2012
- C 3.5 /a till 2005 3 /a till 2012
31PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012
38000
A_GPiea_N_T0 2/a till 2005, then 1,5/a
36000
B_GPiea_N_T0 0,5/a till 2005, then 0
34000
C_GPiea_N_T0 3,5/a till 2005, then 3
32000
30000
-eq. kton/a
28000
2
CO
26000
24000
22000
20000
18000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
32Emission scenariosReversed scenario
-
- What would have been the CO2 emissions
- in Belgium
- if we never had any nuclear electricity
generation?
33Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation,
and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without
Nuclear Power
34Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?
- State of Affairs January 31, 2003
- Nuclear phase out after 40 years in governmental
declaration (July 1999) - Law is orthogonal to then installed AMPERE
Commission - Nuclear Phase-Out Law
- - implements phase out in period 2015 2025
- - prohibits construction new nuclear plants
35Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?State of
Affairs March 6, 2002 contd
- Explanatory Memorandum / Phase-Out Bill
- - suggests no conflict between phase out and GHG
commitments - ? uses Ampere figures to demonstrate
reasonableness of energy savings - ? explicit reference to Triptique Approach
- - incorporates texts that should guarantee
security of supply - ? indicative plan
- ? international electricity exchanges
36Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?State of
Affairs March 6, 2002 contd
-
- - specifies that AMPERE requested to keep
nuclear option open - ? keep up competences for operation of
facilities - ? keep up scientific knowledge ? follow up
new developments - - exceptional Act of God
- in case of threat of the security of
supply (at competitive prices), a Royal Decree
can halt automatic phase out
37Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Problems
with Planned Phase Out
- Observation AMPERE Conclusions
Recommendations too diplomatic - Must read between the lines!
- Suggests potential routes in case of
nuclear phase out - But does not address the consequences
of such phase out - AMPERE document Synthesis
Report provides all - elements to demonstrate
risks related to nuclear phase out
38Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Problems
with Planned Phase Out contd
- Enhanced GHG effect / Climate Change
- - Electricity Generation in B moderate CO2
emitter thanks to NE - - Bill manipulates AMPERE figures to
demonstrate reasonableness - of energy savings
- - Simple computation shows difficulties for 2012
(Kyoto) and quasi-impossibility after 2012 - - Post-AMPERE analysis with MARKAL shows
magnitude of penalty - - Triptique Approach simply non-defendable!
39Historic CO2-evolution and Nuclear Electricity
Generation
40Typical emissions electricity generation
Belgium 307 g/kWhe France 56
g/kWhe Sweden 42 g/kWhe Norway 5
g/kWhe Germany 588 g/kWhe NL 603
g/kWhe UK 521 g/kWhe Spain 471
g/kWhe Denmark 791 g/kWhe Italy 521
g/kWhe EU 399 g/kWhe USA 610
g/kWhe JPN 350 g/kWhe World (1994) 544
g/kWhe
41PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012
38000
A_GPiea_N_T0 2/a till 2005, then 1,5/a
36000
B_GPiea_N_T0 0,5/a till 2005, then 0
34000
C_GPiea_N_T0 3,5/a till 2005, then 3
32000
30000
-eq. kton/a
28000
2
CO
26000
24000
22000
20000
18000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
42Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation,
and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without
Nuclear Power
43Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear
Phase Out
- 1990-1996 increase in C02 emission 13.7
- Simulation scenario A 1998-2012 8
- Required Kyoto reduction
7.5 -
? 30 compared to A - Most voluntaristic attempt
- 1000 MWe CHP ? CO2 reduction with
2-3 - 1500 MWe wind ? CO2 reduction with
? 8 - 4 el. generation bio mass ? CO2 reduction
with ? 8 -
? 20 - ? In 2012 still 10 - pts short!
44Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear
Phase Out contd
- Post-Kyoto with nuclear phase out
- . very
difficult
squaring the circle -
nuclear phase out from 2015 - need for storable
fuel (coal) - all potential CHP, bio mass and
wind exhausted still too early for PV
45Post-Ampere MARKAL hypotheses
- analysis performed by ETE research groupK.U.
Leuven (S. Proost, D. Van Regemorter) - period 1990 2030, intervals of 5 years
- technology database compatible with Ampere data
- max. installed nuclear power in 2030 is 8000
MWemin. electricity production with coal 4 TWh - Kyoto extrapolated until 2030 (-15 w.r.t. 1990)
46Scenario 1No Kyoto constraint no nuclear phase
out
47(No Transcript)
48Scenario 2No Kyoto constraint nuclear phase out
49(No Transcript)
50Scenario 3Kyoto nuclear phase out
51(No Transcript)
52Scenario 4Kyoto no nuclear phase out
53(No Transcript)
54Buying emission certificates from Russia ?
55Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Problems
with Planned Phase Out Contd
- Security of Supply
- - See MARKAL Analysis all gas basket
- - Indicative Plan is only indicative!
- liberalised market has problems with
new investments (California, New
Zealand, Spain) - - international electricity exchanges
- flawed argument
- ? other countries could think similarly
- ? lack of transmission capacity
56Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Problems
with Planned Phase Out Contd
- Postponement Clause - in case of Act of God
- - due to
international threat security of supply - - how
about commitments GHG-reduction? - Final decision on phase out? No, future
parliament can change law but - very uncertain context for
investors future nuclear
investments not evident
57Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Conclusion
- If Belgium is serious about GHG reductions
- e.g., - 15 in 2030 compared to 1990
- and automatic nuclear phase out goes ahead
- ? Major problems for security of affordable
supply - due to - geopolitical instability
- - price fluctuations - non-transparant
behavior liberalised market - - limited availability renewable sources
- - insufficient impact energy efficiency
- reorientation taxes (CO2-tax, energy tax) may
help - ? but careful economic analysis needed
(competitiveness industry)
58Nuclear Phase Out A wise Decision?Conclusion
contd
- Because of major uncertainties,
- deciding now to automatically close NPPs seems
irresponsible - Better alternativeevaluate energy and
environmental context continually set
appropriate safety and environmental standards
and let the market choose whether NE is an option
59General Conclusion
- Commercial Nuclear Energy is sustainable
- ? can be applied continually to benefit future
generations and third world - ? prohibiting nuclear energy does away with
prosperity effects - Government parliament have erred with phase-out
law - - based on ideological considerations
- - likely very expensive
- (GHG, higher prices, interruptions, deny
clean technology for later
generations) - - creates uncertainty for future investors
- Belgium will pay considerable penalty!
60Cost of electricity production by technologies
producing only electricity in 2010 in constant
2000 BEF/kWhe