The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 774213-YmUwO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium

Description:

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium W. D haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute Relative Proportion Energy Basket ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:54
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 61
Provided by: kco59
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium


1
The Future of Nuclear EnergyforElectricity
Generation in Belgium
  • W. Dhaeseleer University of Leuven
    Energy-Institute

2
Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity
Generation in Belgium
3
Orders 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

4
Present 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

5
Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario
6
Co-generation (CHP)
7
Cogeneration 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

8
Renewable 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

9
Renewable 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

10
Renewable Energy Potential Wind on shore
  • Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen,
    TEE, Van Leuven)
  • Prognosis Commission Ampere 1 à 2 TWh

11
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind off shore
  • 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast
  • 1000 MW installed
  • 3 TWh

12
Renewable EnergyHydro
  • Theoretical potential 0.6 TWh/a
  • Technical potential 0.4 TWh/a
  • Already 0.3 TWh in use

13
Renewable 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

14
Renewable 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

16
Nuclear 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!

19
Nuclear 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

20
Nuclear 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

21
Nuclear 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

22
Nuclear 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

23
CO2 emissionsdue to electricity generation

24
Climate 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

25
Climate 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

26
GHG reductions Kyoto Protocol
27
Climate 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

28
Climate 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

29
CO2 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

30
Emission 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

31
PROMIX 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
32
Emission scenariosReversed scenario
  • What would have been the CO2 emissions
  • in Belgium
  • if we never had any nuclear electricity
    generation?

33
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation,
and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without
Nuclear Power
34
Nuclear 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

35
Nuclear 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

36
Nuclear 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

37
Nuclear 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

38
Nuclear 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!

39
Historic CO2-evolution and Nuclear Electricity
Generation
40
Typical 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
41
PROMIX 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
42
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation,
and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without
Nuclear Power
43
Back 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!

44
Back 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

45
Post-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)

46
Scenario 1No Kyoto constraint no nuclear phase
out
47
(No Transcript)
48
Scenario 2No Kyoto constraint nuclear phase out
49
(No Transcript)
50
Scenario 3Kyoto nuclear phase out
51
(No Transcript)
52
Scenario 4Kyoto no nuclear phase out
53
(No Transcript)
54
Buying emission certificates from Russia ?
55
Nuclear 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

56
Nuclear 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

57
Nuclear 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)

58
Nuclear 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

59
General 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!

60
Cost of electricity production by technologies
producing only electricity in 2010 in constant
2000 BEF/kWhe
About PowerShow.com