1 terry webster march 26, 2009
TRANSCRIPT
1
Terry Webster
www.energy.mn.gov
March 26, 2009
2
Planning for Minnesota’s Energy Future:
Including Nuclear Power in Minnesota Future Energy Mix
3
Questions to Explore
I. How has the use of nuclear power developed in the US since inception in 1942?
II. What is the current energy picture?III. What is the outlook for future nuclear power?IV. Is there a potential role for expanded use of
nuclear power?V. What are the new designs of nuclear power
reactors?VI. What are the regulatory policies in other
states?VII. What are the subsidies for electric power
production?
4
I. U.S. Nuclear Electricity Milestones: 1942-Present
Dec. 2, 1942 First controlled nuclear chain reaction with the first demonstration reactor— the Chicago Pile 1.
July 16, 1945 First atomic explosive device at Alamogordo, N.M. Dec. 20, 1951 An experimental reactor produces electric power from the atom for the first time,
lighting four light bulbs. July 17, 1955 The first U.S. town—Arco, Idaho, population 1,000—is powered by nuclear
energy from the experimental boiling water reactor BORAX III. July 12, 1957 Electricity from a civilian nuclear unit is generated for the first time by the
Sodium Reactor Experiment at Santa Susana, Calif. The unit provided power until 1966.
Dec. 2, 1957 The first full scale nuclear power plant at Shippingport, Penn., goes into service. Twenty-one days later it reaches full power, generating 60 megawatts of electricity (MWe).
Oct. 15, 1959 Dresden 1 Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, the first U.S. plant built entirely without government funding, achieves a self sustaining nuclear reaction.
Dec. 12, 1963 Jersey Central Power and Light Co. announces its commitment for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, the first time a nuclear plant is ordered as an economical alternative to a fossil-fuel plant.
April 3, 1965 The first nuclear reactor operates in space. Nov. 9, 1965 The first major electrical blackout occurs in the northeastern United States. Sept. 23, 1970 Electricity “brownouts” hit the Northeast during a heat wave. 1973 U.S. utilities order 41 nuclear power plants, a one year record. 1974 The first 1,000-MWe nuclear plant goes into service—Commonwealth Edison’s
Zion 1 plant. March 28, 1979 A major incident occurs at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near
Harrisburg, Penn. Damage is limited to inside the reactor, and no one is injured.
Sourer: selected milestones from www.nei.org
5
I. U.S. Nuclear Electricity Milestones: 1942-Present
1980 Nuclear energy generates more electricity than oil does. 1983 Nuclear energy generates more electricity than natural gas. 1984 The atom overtakes hydropower to become the second-largest
source of electricity, after coal. 1986 The Perry power plant in Ohio becomes the 100th U.S. nuclear
power plant in operation. 1989 America’s nuclear power plants provide 19 percent of the electricity
used in the United States; 46 units have entered service during the decade.
1991 America’s nuclear power plants set a record for amount of electricity generated, surpassing the 1956 level for all fuel sources combined.
March 1993 Sixteen nuclear utilities sign the first of two contracts with U.S. nuclear plant manufacturers—each agreeing to develop first-of-a-kind engineering on two advanced plant designs.
April 6, 1993 Another nuclear power plant—Comanche Peak 2 in Glen Rose, Texas—goes on line, providing 1,150 MWe to U.S. consumers.
December 1993 Two decades after the first oil embargo, the 109 nuclear power plants operating in the United States generate 610 billion kilowatt-hours of net electricity, providing about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity.
July 1994 The NRC issues final design approval for the first two of four advanced nuclear power plant designs—General Electric’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and ABB Combustion Engineering’s System 80+.
May, 1997 The NRC issues design certification for the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and for the ABB Combustion Engineering System 80+. Certifications are valid for the next 15 years.
April 10, 1998 Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. submit an application to the NRC to renew the license of its two unit Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant—the first U.S. company to apply for a 20-year extension of its 40-year license.
6
I. U.S. Nuclear Electricity Milestones: 1942-Present
March 23, 2000 The NRC issues the first-ever license renewal to Constellation Energy’s Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, allowing an additional 20 years of operation.
Feb. 25, 2002 The NRC issues the first in a series of orders to the nuclear energy industry to heighten security readiness.
Aug. 8, 2005 President Bush signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law which authorizes $2.9 billion for nuclear energy programs.
Aug. 24, 2005 GE Energy’s nuclear unit submits a design certification application to the NRC for its 1,500-MW Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.
Dec. 21, 2005 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) established to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants (includes all non-emitting sources, meaning nuclear energy and renewables are treated equally.)
Dec. 30, 2005 The NRC approves a final design certification rule for Westinghouse’s AP1000 advanced reactor design, which is valid for 15 years.
June 23, 2006 The NRC issues a license to Louisiana Energy Services to construct and operate the National Enrichment Facility in New Mexico. This is the first license for a full-scale uranium enrichment plant.
Nov. 8, 2006 The NRC renews the operating license for the Monticello plant in Minnesota for an additional 20 years, until 2030. This brings the total number of reactors that have received renewed licenses to 47.
March 27, 2007 The NRC grants early site permits for Entergy’s Grand Gulf plant and Exelon’s Clinton plant.
August 2007 The nuclear sector is the first to complete the Department of Homeland Security’s Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection security review process.
Oct. 4, 2007 DOE issues final regulations for Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provides funding key nuclear energy programs totaling more than $970 million.
Dec. 13, 2007 Duke Energy Corp. submits a COL application for two AP1000 reactors in South Carolina.
7
II. Current Nuclear Power Use
• Worldwide
• United States
• Minnesota
8
Worldwide Nuclear Power Use
• 436 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries.
• Combined capacity of over 370 GWe.
• In 2007, nuclear power provided 2608 billion kWh, about 16% of the world's electricity.
9
Worldwide Nuclear Power Use
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.tif
10
Top 10 Nuclear Generating Countries 2007, Billion kWh
806.5
420.1
267.3
148 136.6 133.21
88.2 87.2264.3 59.3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
U.S.
France
Japa
n
Russia
Korea
Rep
.
German
y
Canad
a
Ukrain
e
Sweden
China
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, U.S. is from Energy Information Administration
Updated: 9/08
13
United States Nuclear Power Reactors
• 104 nuclear power reactors operating.
• 28 nuclear power reactors shutdown.• 1 nuclear power reactor under construction
(Watts Bar-2, Tennessee).
• 806501.261 GWh of electricity produced in 2007.
• In 2007, nuclear power provided about 20% of the US electricity.
http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/a2/
14
Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/
15
Minnesota Nuclear Highlights
• 31 States with nuclear capacity, Minnesota ranks 21st. • Monticello Unit 1 597 MWe 37 %• Prairie Island Unit 1, Unit 2 1,049 MWe 63 %
Total 3 Reactors 1,646 MWe 100 %
• The Prairie Island nuclear power plant ranks second in
capacity among Minnesota’s power plants.• The Monticello nuclear plant ranks fourth in the State.
Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report"
16
Minnesota Electric Capacity
Electric Capacity 2006
Coal43%
Petroleum6%
Natural Gas28%
Nuclear13%
Hydroelectric1%
Other Renewables9%
Other0%
Electric Capacity - 1990
Coal65%
Petroleum11%
Natural Gas4%
Nuclear16%
Hydroelectric2%
Other Renewables2%
Other0%
source: EIA
17
III. What is the future of Nuclear Power?
• Minnesota
• US
• World
18
Future Nuclear Power Use
• Nuclear Powered Electric is part of current energy mix.
• With relicensing, Minnesota’s nuclear power production will remain constant (but a decrease percent of energy mix.)
• With relicensing and new construction, US and World nuclear production will increase.
19
Minnesota Electric Capacity 1990 – 2006Energy Capacity by Source:
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time
MW
e
Total Electric Industry Coal Petroleum Natural Gas
Nuclear Hydroelectric Other Renewables Other
source: REIS Data Base
20
Status of Minnesota’s Nuclear Generation Facilities
• Original license application for the Monticello nuclear power plant scheduled to expire in 2010. License renewal application filed 03/24/05 and renewed license for 20 year issued 11/08/06.
• The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission granted a Certificate of Need for a 71 MW increase (uprate) in the generating capability at Monticello.
• Original license for Prairie Island unit 1 scheduled to expire in 2013, and that for unit 2 expires in 2014. License renewal application filed 04/15/08 with NRC decision anticipated on 10/15/10.
• Xcel has filed for Certificate of Need for a 164 MW increase (uprate) (82 MW per unit) in the generating capability at Prairie Island.
• No new facilities are planned due to Minnesota Law.http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html#plant
21
United States Electricity Capacity
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/overview.html
22
Status of U.S. Nuclear Generation Facilities
• The US has over 100 nuclear reactors providing almost 20% of its electricity.
• The first operating license will expire in the year 2009; approximately 10 percent will expire by the end of 2010; and more than 40 percent will expire by 2015.
• The decision to seek license renewal is strictly voluntary and nuclear power plant owners (i.e., licensees) must decide whether they are likely to satisfy NRC requirements and whether license renewal is a cost-effective venture.
• There have been 17 license applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders.
23
U.S. Nuclear Industry Yearly Power Uprates 1977-2008
Source: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionUpdated: 11/08
93 8027
68 62 46
154
358 373
11
243
1,111
13469
726
47103
159
354
715
79
276352
1977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007
MWe
24
Cumulative Capacity Additions at U.S. Nuclear Facilities
1977-2013
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1977-1999
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Projections 3,478 MWe by 2013
Approved 5,640 MWe
Source: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionUpdated: 2/09
25
Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Reactors in the US
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html
26
World Electricity Capacity
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2007).pdf
27
Status of World’s Current
Nuclear Generation Facilities
Source: http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/a2/
28
Nuclear Units Under Construction Worldwide
29
Status of World’s Nuclear Future Generation Facilities
• About 35 power reactors are currently being constructed in 11 countries notably China (11), India (6), S. Korea (5) and Russia (6).
• IAEA anticipates at least 70 new plants in the next 15 years, putting 470 to 750 GWe in place in 2030.
• OECD estimates range up to 680 GWe in 2030 based on specific plans and actions in a number of countries. The fastest growth is in Asia.
• This would give nuclear power a 17% share in electricity production in 2020.
• In the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. With China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
30
IV. Potential role for expanded use of nuclear power in Minnesota’s electricity future
• Minnesota’s electric fuel generation is changing.• Expected growth cannot be addressed with the Minnesota aging
coal plant fleet.• Renewables and energy efficiency will not address our baseload
energy needs.• Energy planning for 2025 and beyond must start now.
– Nuclear power is part of energy mix.– Contribution of nuclear power will remain constant with renewal of the three
current units until operating expires in 2034.– Coal power electric generation is the largest portion of Minnesota’s energy
mix. The age of Minnesota’s coal plan must be acknowledged.– The Non-carbon and low-carbon energy mix options can be identified.
31
Minnesota Current Electric Fuel Mix
Electric Capacity 2006
Coal43%
Petroleum6%
Natural Gas28%
Nuclear13%
Hydroelectric1%
Other Renewables9%
Other0%
Electric Capacity - 1990
Coal65%
Petroleum11%
Natural Gas4%
Nuclear16%
Hydroelectric2%
Other Renewables2%
Other0%
(source: EIA)
32
Minnesota’s Coal Plant Additions
source: REIS Data Base
33
Coal Plant Fleet Vintage Comparison
Coal Plant Fleet Vintage as of 2009
"20 to 29 yrs"29%
"30 to 39 yrs"35%
"40 to 49 yrs"23%
"> = 50"13%
"< 19 yrs"0%
"< 19 yrs"
"20 to 29 yrs"
"30 to 39 yrs"
"40 to 49 yrs"
"> = 50"
Coal Plant Fleet Vintage as of 2025
"30 to 39 yrs"12%
"40 to 49 yrs"43%
"> = 50"45%
"< 19 yrs"0%"20 to 29 yrs"
0%
"< 19 yrs"
"20 to 29 yrs"
"30 to 39 yrs"
"40 to 49 yrs"
"> = 50"
source: REIS Data Base
34
With Coal Plant Fleet Aging,what are the Non-carbon options?
• Non-carbon emitting resources are necessary to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions.
• Sources of Non-carbon or low carbon emitting resources include: – Hydro;– Renewables; – Natural Gas; – Coal and IGCC(with sequestration); and – Nuclear.
35
The Current Energy Picture:The Limitation of Non-Carbon Options
• Hydro – limited build options
• Renewables – geographic limitations, limited potential, intermittent, non-baseload generation
• Natural Gas – limited resource, needed for other uses
• Coal and IGCC with sequestration – not commercial demonstrated
• Nuclear – cost, safety, waste disposal
36
Nuclear Power Generation is an Option• Nuclear Power generation is currently used.
– 439 operating reactors worldwide providing 16 percent of electricity
– 104 operating reactors in US providing 20 percent of electricity
– 3 operating reactors (at 2 facilities) in Minnesota providing 16 percent of electricity
• Reliable operation – baseload, dispatchable• Existing plants have low production costs• Available fuel supply from diverse resources• Older plants being re-licensed and new plants are
planned.• New Plants have advance safety designs.
37
Nuclear Power Production Issues• Safety
– Improving Safety (reduction in average number of accidents)
– Improving Safety (reduction in number of significant events ).
• Cost/Time – New Plant Construction Costs from recent regulator filings
– Comparative Costs for Alternative New Electric Generation
– Construction Time lines
• Waste disposal – On-site storage for waste from current and new plants.
– Permanent national geologic repository is necessary.
38
U.S. Nuclear Industrial Safety Accident RateOne-Year Industry Values
0.23
0.17 0.17
0.21
0.180.17
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.22
0.26
0.38
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010GoalISAR = Number of accidents resulting in lost work, restricted work, or fatalities per 200,000
worker hours.Source: World Association of Nuclear Operators Updated: 4/08
39
Comparative Safety Record(2004 Lost-time Accident rate per 200,000 hours)
40
Significant Events at U.S. Nuclear Plants: Annual Industry Average, Fiscal Year 1988-2006
0.77
0.90
0.450.40
0.25 0.260.21
0.17
0.08 0.100.04 0.03 0.04
0.07 0.05 0.070.04 0.05
0.01
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Significant Events are those events that the NRC staff identifies for the Performance Indicator Program as meeting one or more of the following criteria:
A Yellow or Red Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) finding or performance indicator An event with a Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP) or increase in core damage probability (ΔCDP) of 1x10-5 or higher An Abnormal Occurrence as defined by Management Directive 8.1, “Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure” An event rated two or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale
Source: NRC Information Digest, 1988 is the earliest year data is available. Updated: 11/07
41
New Nuclear Power Plant Costs
See Paper titled The Cost of New Generating Capacity in Perspective at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs
42
New Nuclear Power Life-Cycle Costs Comparison
See Paper titled The Cost of New Generating Capacity in Perspective at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs
43
Power Plant Costs Comparison
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf
Technology
Online
Year1Size
(mW)
Leadtime
(Years)
Base Overnight Cost in 2008
($2007/kW)
ProjectContingency
Factors2
TechnologicalOptimism
Factor3
Total Overnight
Cost in
20084
Variable
O&M5
($2007 mills/kWh)
Fixed O&M5
($2007/kW)
Scrubbed Coal New 2012 600 4 1,923 1.07 1.00 2,058 4.59 27.53Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) 2012 550 4 2,223 1.07 1.00 2,378 2.92 38.67IGCC with Carbon Sequestration 2016 380 4 3,172 1.07 1.03 3,496 4.44 46.12Conv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle 2011 250 3 917 1.05 1.00 962 2.07 12.48Adv Gas/Oil Comb Cycle (CC) 2011 400 3 877 1.08 1.00 948 2.00 11.70ADV CC with Carbon Sequestration 2016 400 3 1,683 1.08 1.04 1,890 2.94 19.90Conv Combustion
Turbine8 2010 160 2 638 1.05 1.00 670 3.57 12.11Adv Combustion Turbine 2010 230 2 604 1.05 1.00 634 3.17 10.53Fuel Cells 2011 10 3 4,640 1.05 1.10 6,360 47.92 5.65Advanced Nuclear 2016 1,350 6 2,873 1.10 1.05 3,318 0.49 90.02Distributed Generation-Base 2011 2 3 1,305 1.05 1.00 1,370 7.12 16.03Distributed Generation-Peak 2010 1 2 1,566 1.05 1.00 1,645 7.12 16.03Biomass 2012 80 4 3,339 1.07 1.05 3,766 6.71 64.45MSW - Landfill Gas 2010 30 3 2,377 1.07 1.00 2,543 0.01 114.25Geothermal 2010 50 4 1,630 1.05 1.00 1,711 0.00 164.64Conventional Hydropower 2012 500 4 2,038 1.10 1.00 2,242 2.43 13.63Wind 2009 50 3 1,797 1.07 1.00 1,923 0.00 30.30Wind Offshore 2012 100 4 3,416 1.10 1.03 3,851 0.00 89.48Solar Thermal 2012 100 3 4,693 1.07 1.00 5,021 0.00 56.78Photovoltaic 2011 5 2 5,750 1.05 1.00 6,038 0.00 11.68
Contingnecy FactorsTable 8.2 : Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies
44
New Nuclear Construction Timelines
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/factsheet/key_steps_in_building_a_new_reactor
45
Nuclear Power Production Waste Disposal
• U.S. nuclear energy industry in 50 years of operation has produced approximately 60,000 metric of used nuclear fuel produced.
• Used fuel is a solid material that is stored at nuclear power plant
sites, either in enclosed, steel-lined concrete pools filled with water, or in steel or reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
• Research is ongoing to develop advanced technologies to recycle used nuclear fuel to reduce the amount of radioactive byproducts in the material, while recovering valuable energy.
• Under any used fuel management scenario, disposal of radioactive byproducts in a permanent geologic repository is necessary.
46
On-Site Used Nuclear Fuel AmountsUS State by State Commercial Nuclear Used Fuel
3090
350430440
530550560570570610690740
9801,0101,0601,1201,1801,2001,280
1,6201,660
1,8302,1802,1802,2102,280
2,5102,6602,660
3,1003,130
3,4605,240
7,120
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
ColoradoIdaho
OregonIowa
New HampshireKansasMaine
VermontMissouri
WashingtonMassachusetts
MississippiNebraska
OhioLouisiana
MinnesotaArkansasMaryland
WisconsinTennessee
ArizonaTexas
ConnecticutNew Jersey
VirginiaGeorgia
MichiganCaliforniaAlabama
FloridaNorth Carolina
New YorkSouth Carolina
PennsylvaniaIllinois
Metric Tons of Uranium
Source: ACI Nuclear Energy Solutions and Department of Energy
47
European Nuclear Waste Amounts(in tons of heavy metal)
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/energy/indicators/EN13%2C2008.11/Fig1/view
Data source: (OECD, 2007), (IAEA, 2003b), (NEA, 2007)
48
Nuclear Waste Disposal: Status and Trends
(not an exhaustive listing)
• Country Policy Facilities and progress towards final repositories
Belgium Reprocessing Central waste storage at Dessel Underground laboratory established 1984 at Mol Construction of repository to begin about 2035
Canada Direct Disposal Nuclear Waste Management Organisation set up 2002 Deep geological repository confirmed as policy, retrievable Repository site search from 2009, planned for use 2025
China Reprocessing Central used fuel storage in LanZhou Repository site selection completed by 2020 Underground research laboratory from 2020, disposal from 2050
Finland Direct Disposal Program start 1983, two used fuel storages in operation Posiva Oy set up 1995 to implement deep geological disposal Repository under construction near Olkiluoto, open in 2020
France Reprocessing TUnderground rock laboratories in clay and granite Parliamentary confirmation in 2006 of deep geological disposal Bure is likely repository site to be licensed 2015, operating 2025
Germany Reprocessing but moving to direct disposal
Repository planning started 1973 Used fuel storage at Ahaus and Gorleben salt dome Geological repository may be operational at Gorleben after 2025
India Reprocessing Research on deep geological disposal for HLW
Japan Reprocessing
High-level waste storage facility at Rokkasho since 1995 High-level waste storage approved for Mutsu from 2010 NUMO set up 2000, site selection for deep geological repository under way to 2025, operation from 2035
Russia Reprocessing Sites for final repository under investigation on Kola peninsula Various storage facilities in operation
South Korea Direct Disposal Waste program confirmed 1998 Central interim storage planned from 2016
Spain Direct Disposal ENRESA established 1984, its plan accepted 1999 Central interim storage probably at Trillo from 2010 Research on deep geological disposal, decision after 20101
Sweden Direct Disposal Central used fuel storage facility - CLAB - in operation since 1985 Underground research laboratory at Aspo for HLW repository Site selection for repository in two volunteered locations
Switzerland Reprocessing
Central interim storage for HLW at Zwilag since 2001 Central low & ILW storages operating since 1993 Underground research laboratory for high-level waste repository, with deep repository to be finished by 2020
United Kingdom Reprocessing
Low-level waste repository in operation since 1959 HLW from reprocessing is vitrified and stored at Sellafield Repository location to be on basis of community agreement New NDA subsidiary to progress geological disposal
USA Direct Disposal, but reconsidering DoE responsible for used fuel from 1998, $28 billion waste fund Considerable research on repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 2002 decision that geological repository be at Yucca Mountain
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
49
V. Designs of New
Nuclear Power Reactors
http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/evolution.htm
50
Today’s Nuclear Plant Design (LWRs)
Name Vendor Type Size(MWe)ABWR a, b, c(1997), d GE/Hitachi, orAdvanced Boiling Water Reactor Toshiba BWR 300
AP1000 b, c(2006), d, eAdvanced Pressurized (Water Reactor) Westinghouse PWR 1150ESBWR c(2009), d, eEconomic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor GE/Hitachi BWR 1400EPR b, c(2010), dEvolutionary Pressurized (Water) Reactor Areva PWR 1600•APWR b, c(2010), d(US-)Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor Mitsubishi PWR 1700
• a: Plants in operation worldwide • b: Plants under construction worldwide• c: Design certification by NRC (year certified or expected)• d: Plant named in a license application in the US • e: Passively safe design
The most viable are those with NRC design certification
51
ABWR: The U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
• Uses a single-cycle, forced circulation design with a rated power of 1,300 megawatts electric (MWe).
• The design incorporates features of the BWR designs in Europe, Japan, and the United States, and uses improved electronics, computer, turbine, and fuel technology.
• Improvements include the use of internal recirculation pumps, control rod drives that can be controlled by a screw mechanism rather than a step process, microprocessor-based digital control and logic systems, and digital safety systems.
• The design also includes safety enhancements such as protection against overpressurizing the containment, passive core debris flooding capability, an independent water makeup system, three emergency diesels, and a combustion turbine as an alternate power source.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
52
AP1000: The Advanced Passive 1000 • A larger version of the previously
approved AP600 design.
• This 1,100 MWe advanced pressurized water reactor incorporates passive safety systems and simplified system designs.
• It is similar to the AP600 design but uses a longer reactor vessel to accommodate longer fuel, and also includes larger steam generators and a larger pressurizer.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
53
ESBWR: The Economic and Simplified Boiling Water Reactor
• A 1,500 MWe, natural circulation boiling water reactor that incorporates passive safety features.
• This design is based on its predecessor, the 670 MWe Simplified BWR (SBWR) and also utilizes features of the certified ABWR.
• The ESBWR enhances natural circulation by using a taller vessel, a shorter core, and by reducing the flow restrictions.
• The design utilizes an isolation condenser system for high-pressure water level control and decay heat removal during isolated conditions.
• After the automatic depressurization system operates, a gravity-driven cooling system provides low-pressure water level control.
• Containment cooling is provided by a passive system.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
54
EPR: The Evolutionary Power Reactor• 1,600 MWe pressurized water
reactor of evolutionary design.• Design features include four
100% capacity trains of engineered safety features, a double-walled containment, and a “core catcher” for containment and cooling of core materials for severe accidents resulting in reactor vessel failure.
• The design does not rely on passive safety features.
• The first EPR is under construction at the Olkiluoto site in Finland, with another planned for the Flammanville site in France.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
55
APWR: Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor
• An evolutionary 1,700 MWe pressurized water reactor currently being licensed and built in Japan.
• The design includes high-performance steam generators, a neutron reflector around the core to increase fuel economy, redundant core cooling systems and refueling water storage inside the containment building, and fully digital instrumentation and control systems.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
56
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in Pre-Application Review
Differences between PBMR and current US light-water reactors
• Fuel design - Tennis ball-sized “pebbles” of ceramic graphite, impregnated with thousands of tiny, coated particles of low-enriched uranium, fuel the PBMR.
• Cooling mechanism - a PBMR site would not require large water supplies, because it uses helium (not water) to cool the reactor.
• Electricity output/Plant Size - The main PBMR building of an eight module (1320MWe) plant fit into two soccer fields (113m x 103m), allowing for a phase-in of new units as electricity demand grows.
• Construction process - The PBMR concept consists of pre-fabricated modules assembled at the plant site in just two years.
• Waste Management - Safe storage is ensured since the encapsulating graphic spheres provide corrosion protection and prevents environmental contamination by the release of fission products. products isolated from one another.
• Safety Features - The PBMR technology has a simple basis which requires no human intervention.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html
• A modular high-temperature gas reactor that uses helium as its coolant.
• PBMR design consists of eight reactor modules, 165 MWe per module, with capacity to store 10 years of spent fuel in the plant).
• The PBMR core is based on German high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology and uses spherical graphite elements containing ceramic-coated fuel particles.
The fuel consists of low-enriched uranium particles, measuring about 0.5 mm in diameter, contained in four coated layers of protective graphite sphere.
Fun figures - One pebble contains 9g of Uranium, with an enrichment level of 9.6%, burnt to 92 000MWdays/ton of heavy metal = 71.5GJ. Converted into electricity it is about 8MWh per pebble. The converted electrical energy in one pebble is (8MWh): Enough to power 132 500 light bulbs (60W) for 1 hour or Enough to power one 60W light bulb for 30 years, 3 months, burning 12 hours/day.
57
VI. Regulatory Activity in Other States
• States that prohibition on construction of new nuclear power plants:-Minnesota
• States that require waste disposal by federal government:
-California - Kentucky -Connecticut - Illinois
• States that require waste disposal is operational and is accepting waste products:-Maine -Oregon -West Virginia-Massachusetts -Wisconsin
• States that require that costs of any nuclear proposal be economically feasible or advantages to ratepayers:-Wisconsin - West Virginia
58
VI. Regulatory Activityin Other States (continued)
• States that require legislative ratification to license a nuclear power plant:-California -Illinois -Rhode Island -Vermont
• States with specific cost provisions regarding financing of nuclear power plants:-New York -Kansas -Rhode Island -Connecticut
• States that require voter ratification:-Maine - Oregon-Montana - Massachusetts
• States that are re-visiting nuclear legislation:-Minnesota -Wisconsin -Kentucky
59
VII. Electricity Production Subsidies
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
60
Summary Observations
• New nuclear plants will likely begin construction in a few years, in the Southeast US and around the world. If the ‘first wave’ is successful (cost & schedule), the potential is there for development in other states.
• Acceptance in Minnesota depends on addressing nuclear power production limitation of cost, safety, waste disposal.
• If prohibition is lifted and nuclear power is an option, construction continues to depend on the relative cost of nuclear power and how it fits into Minnesota’s and the region’s energy plans.
• Nuclear is and can continue to be a critical part of our nation’s energy mix with safe, reliable and low cost energy.