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 download - 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:83
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 Energy for Electricity
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 Energy Potential 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 Energy Potential 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 Energy Potential Wind off shore
  • 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast
  • 1000 MW installed
  • 3 TWh

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

13
Renewable Energy Generation 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 Energy Total 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 emissions due to electricity generation

24
Climate and Human Activity
  • Conclusions Ampere climate expert
  • There is little doubt that the measured increase
    of the 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 scenarios Promix
  • 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 scenarios Reversed 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 Calculation GHG 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 Calculation GHG 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 group K.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
    MWe min. electricity production with coal 4 TWh
  • Kyoto extrapolated until 2030 (-15 w.r.t. 1990)

46
Scenario 1 No Kyoto constraint no nuclear phase
out
47
(No Transcript)
48
Scenario 2 No Kyoto constraint nuclear phase out
49
(No Transcript)
50
Scenario 3 Kyoto nuclear phase out
51
(No Transcript)
52
Scenario 4 Kyoto 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 alternative evaluate 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