energy policy in italy: nuclear power, climate change...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy policy in Italy:Nuclear power, Climate Change and
Perspectives for Renewables
Maria Rosaria Di Nucci, FFU
Green Power markets, future energy policies and emission trading. Schemes in Comparison
Salzburg, Sept 26- 30, 2004
OUTLINE
• A. The 3 phases of nuclear powerdevelopment in Italy
• B. The nuclear legacy• C. Is there still a role for nuclear
power? • D. The role of renewables
A. Stages of the Italian N-powerdevelopment
It is customary practice to subdivide the Italian nuclear power development into three phases:
• The pioneering years till the mid 60s;• The period between 1966 and 1987
culminating with the referendum;• The post referendum phase (by 1990 Italy
shut down its 4 nuclear power plants)
A. Nuclear facilities in Italy
Beside 4 decommissioned NPPs Italy has:• 2 nuclear centres with reprocessing and
storage facilites (Saluggia und Trisaia) • 5 research reactors in operation, • a Joint Research Centre together with the
EU is in operation in Ispra
A. Table : Italy´s nuclear power plantsSite Type Construction
StartGridconnection
Shutdown
Latina GCR 150 MW
1958 1963
1963
1964
1978
1987
1982
1990
1990
Garigliano BWR 150 MW
1958
Trino PWR 260 MW
1961
Caorso BWR 900 MW
1969
A. Sites of commercial nuclearpower plants
A. Characteristics of the pioneerphase
• Large national consensus• Technology pluralism (Magnox, BWR, PWR, Candu)• Bilateral cooperation agreements with the UK (Magnox
reactor)• Direct involvement in Euratom• Membership of the IAEA. • With the nationalisation of the electric sector in 1962 and
the drop in oil prices, the nuclear euphoria began to fade• The interests of the former electric utilities shifted to
expanding sectors such as (petro)chemicals, and the nuclear engagement lost its major supporters. In Italy the era of all-oil was starting.
A. Highlights of the pioneer phase
• 1960: Enactment of the Italian Atomic Law• Establishment of the Atomic Authority CNEN and
the financing of the nuclear programme.• 1963-1965: commercial NPPs were transfered to
ENEL• 1964-66: as all three NPPs were operating, Italy
covered 13.8% of the world’s installed nuclear power capacity (France:3%, Germany:0.5%)
A. Highlights of the transitionperiod
• 1973: Italy joined the EURODIF consortium and the FBR Superphenix (Enel´s share in NERSA 33%)
• 1974-75: announcement of an intensive nuclear programme, envisaging 20.000 MW by 1985 and 40.000 MW by 1990
• 1975: Piano Energetico Nazionale- PEN 1975. Energy plan to cope with the problems provoked by the first oil shock (largely ineffectual)
• Following the oil crisis of 1979, an entirely new plan was prepared in 1980 and revised in 1981. This foresaw a reduction in consumption through energy saving measures, coal, nuclear power and also RES.
• 1983:Construction of PEC (Prova Elementi diCombustible) for testing fast breeder fuel elements.
A. Highlights of the transition period• 1982: The National Energy Plan of envisaged two
nuclear units at Montalto di Castro (BWR-GE) and 6 other units on three different sites (Piedmont, Lombardy and Apulia).
• For the new orders both PWR and BWR were to be taken into consideration.
• The plan also identified the development of a standard nuclear plant design and construction plant, the so-called PUN (Progetto Unificato Nazionale), based on the PWR 312 Westinghouse design.
• ENEL opted for a standardised PWR
A. Highlights of the post-referendum phase
• December 1987: CIPE stopped the only two sites where construction work was proceeding according to plan: the Montalto di Castro plant (2 X 1000 MWe BWR) and the facilities in Piedmont (2 X 1000 MWe PWR) whose operation was planned to start in 1990.
• A nuclear moratorium period of five years became effective. • July 1990: The Caorso reactor, which had already been shut
down in October 1986 for the annual refuelling remained in “cold shut down” for a complete safety review and assessment and was closed down.
• At the same time the Trino NPP was closed. • The remaining units of Garigliano and Latina had already been
shut down in August 1978 and November 1986, respectively. • ENEA shut down a number of fuel cycle related facilities
A. Highlights of the post-referendum phase
Re-definition of the national energy policy through: a new energy programme, PEN 1988,two laws, Law 9 and Law 10 of 1991.
• These instruments were to provide an answer to Italy´swithdrawal from nuclear power and to deal with some aspects of the RD&D on RES-technologies and their market-introduction.
• The main mechanism for the RES development became the CIP Directive 6/92, setting rules for the production of electricity through independent producers (IPP) and the obligation of the ex monopolist ENEL to allow third parties feed-in into the grid.
B. The nuclear legacy today• Although today N-power does not play any relevant role, Italy is
still confronted with the problem of ensuring safety solution for its nuclear waste
• At present, the inventory of spent fuel from the dismissed NPPsand plants fuel cycle facilities is estimated at around 230 ton U-Pufrom NPPs, 60 ton U-Pu from the ENEL participation to “Superphenix”, 4 ton U-Pu from ENEA plants.
• Most of the wastes, including spent fuel, are at present stored in the sites where they have been generated, in facilities that were not designed for long term storage.
• Legambiente has estimated that nuclear materials are stored in around 150 sites spread across the national territory
• Public protest blocked the search for a site (Scanzano)• The strategy is to export 99% of domestic nuclear waste to the UK
or France.
B. Strategic options (Ministry of Industry 1999)
• In Dec. 1999, the Industry Ministry presented a strategy to manage the problems connected with the closure of all national nuclear activities. This envisaged:The treatment and conditioning of all waste resulting from the operation of the plants currently in onsite storage within ten years, with a view to subsequent transport to a national waste repository.Site selection and construction of a national repository for low and intermediate level waste, within ten years. These sites were also supposed to take in the storage of spent fuel and waste from reprocessing. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities within 20 years, with a long-term view of returning all sites to unrestricted use.
B. Nuclear Waste
• In the middle of the 90ties, ENEL decided to terminate nuclear fuel reprocessing in its own pilot reprocessing plants and to proceed with interim dry storage of the remaining spent fuel of light water reactors.
• Spent fuel (around 235 tonnes) to be exported to Sellafield for reprocessing .
• In these facilities waste from the Latina and Garigliano NPPS have been treated.
C. Italy outlook2005 2010 2015 2020
Population (million) 57.5 56.4 55.2 53.9
GDP (US$bn 1995) 1230 1431 1588 1736
GDP/capita (US$/capita) 21407 25374 28739 32225
Growing energy consumption in all sectors.
Final energy consumption
39 43 47 49
4547
50 54
4245
4848
1414
1415
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2005 2010 2015 2020
other
residential/commercial
transport
industry
Source: ENEA, Rapporto Energia e Ambiente 2004
Mto
e
C. Energy Demand- ProjectionPrimary energy demand (% of tot, reference scenario)
24% 26% 31% 33% 34% 37% 40%
57% 56% 49% 45% 42% 40% 37%
10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8%
5% 6% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9%
5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 7% 6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
importedelectricity
renewables
coal
oil
natural gas
Source: ENEA, Rapporto Energia e Ambiente 2004
C. CO2 Reference Scenario
CO2 emissions: reference scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Mt
electric sector
energy industry
industry
transport
civil
KYOTOTARGET
Source: ENEA, Rapporto Energia e Ambiente 2004
• The Kyoto Protocol requires Italy to reduce emissions by 6.5% below 1990 level•Transport and energy industry are the sectors with the largest emission growth•by 2020 they will be responsible for c. 57% of total GHG emissions.
C. Perspectives for N-power in the energy mix. Has N-power a future in Italy?
• In January 2005 Italy´s prime minister Berlusconi announced a re-launch of nuclear energy.
This was justified with: • the high cost of imported electricity (16% of the total
production) • the problem of energy reserves/dependence on oil. • Italy´s Kyoto commitment (-6.5% CO2)
Berlusconi stated that energy costs in Italy are 20 to 30 % higher than in other countries. He pointed out that NPPS in neighbouring countries expose Italy to risk in any case.
C. Response to a relaunch of N-plans
This argument failed to convince: • research institutes• the opposition and environmentalist
associations.• …and even Sogin, the company responsible
for decommissioning. Sogin stated that sucha proposal is unrealistic, due to the age and condition of the N-facilities.
C. Italy: a N-free area?
Italy cannot be considered a nuclear-free area. • Nuclear waste still plays a disquieting role • Much of the imported electricity is generated by
nuclear power. Italy already imports electricity directly from a Slovenian nuclear power plant 60 miles from the Italian city of Trieste and from France.
• and…• another tendency has set through.
C. Investment in N-power abroad• Thanks to the liquidity coming from the divestment
mandated by the reform of the electricity market and the later transfer of the telecommunication company Wind, ENEL can count on the availability of important financial resources to sustain a growth programme destined to strengthen the role of Enel in the European energy market.
• The finances available for acquisitions are estimated at around 15 M Euro.
• ENEL announced that in the first half of 2006 it will definitely conclude the acquisition of 66% of the ex Slovak electric monopolist Slovenske Elektrarne .
C. Investment in N-power abroad• In 2003 the Slovak Government called for tenders for the privatisation
of the electricity sector. The bidders were required to include plans for the completion of the third and fourth nuclear units at Mochovce.
• In the autumn of 2004, ENEL was chosen as the preferred bidder. Enel concluded for 840 M the acquisition of 2/3 of the SlovenskeElektrarne.
• This by passing of the block wanted by the 1987 referendum was made possible by the so called " Marzano-Law " that allows national producers of electricity (paragraph 42 of the first and only article) eventually in profit-sharing with enterprises of other countries, to develop, realise and run plants abroad, also with the purpose ofimporting the produced energy.
• An opposite principle to the one that prevented Enel to participate further in the French SuperPhoenix has set through.
C. The relationship with France• Enel is about to conclude an agreement that foresees the
possibility of a share in the EPR-project, the "European pressurised reactor", the third generation reactor planned in France for 2015.
• The industry ministers of Italy and France signed in June 2005 a protocol of understanding concerning energy.
• The protocol provides for coordination of the two countries on the EU level (market liberalization, supply security, energy efficiency), on the international level (Aie, International Energy Forum) and on the Euro-Mediterranean level (southeasternEurope, Remep).
• Cooperation will also concern management of radioactive wastes. Sogin and its French counterpart Andra may come to an agreement that will include Italian wastes from the Superphénixreactor.
C. A revival of N-power?• The N-power come back will probably become a strong issue of
the political manifesto of the governing parties (conservative coalition) in the coming election in 2006.
• Politicians know that nuclear is not a viable option, but they want to get the population familiar with the idea of the Italianinvolvement in nuclear projects in Europe.
• The propaganda talks about reopening the NPPs without considering that all Italian NPP’s are definitely shut down and at different stages of decommissioning.
• A changed popular attitude towards nuclear power is not realistic. Even if people can be persuaded that modern nuclear power plants are safer than Chernobyl reactor types, no municipality is prepared to host a waste repository.
C. The alternatives• Other paths must taken to supply immediate answers to the
national energy requirement. • These are: energy conservation, natural gas and RES.• The growing importance of natural gas in Italy's energy
consumption mix not only allows Italy to achieve its goal of energy diversification, but it also helps the Italian government to meet domestic and European environmental requirements for carbon dioxide emissions.
• Wind energy (1600 MW) and biomass have almost reached the threshold of competitiveness with other sources of energy.
D. The role of Renewables• Italy has begun to push RES to increase its generating capacity,
reduce its reliance on oil-fired plants, and decrease its carbondioxide emissions.
• The share of RES-E to total power production is 18%• Hydropower covered in 2004 c. 2/3 of Italy’s RES-generation,
with a total production of 36,674 GWh followed by geothermal, wind power and biomass.
• Enel announced in 2005 that it would build 71 wind turbines throughout the country, each generating 1.5 MW of electricity. Wind power reached at the End of September 05 c. 1600MW installed power
• Analysts estimate that Italy could have the largest, percapitageothermal potential in the world.
• According to the International Geothermal Association (IGA), Italy has the fourth-largest installed geothermal capacity in the world (795 MW), and country has some 94 % of the total geothermal electricity capacity in the EU.
The role of RES-E• The share of RES-E to total electricity demand rose slightly
from 16% in 1997 to 18% in 2004. • The EU-RES directive sets a goal of 25% by 2010. • In 2004, domestic electricity demand amounted to 322 TWh
(-0.4%) as opposed to a gross-electricity generation of 300.4 TWh (+2.3%). Import electricity covered 45.6 TWh corresponding to 16% of the total requirement.
• Hydropower production amounted to 48.7 TWh (including pumped-storage plants), with an increase of 10% from 2003.
• Thermal production from fossil fuels totalled 244.4 TWh. The remainder came from other renewable sources, such as geothermal plants (5.4 TWh), wind power (1.8 TWh), biomass and PV plants
2004 electrical energy production in Italy
Source: GRTN Monthly Report of Dec. 2004 2004 energy(TWh)
2004-2003%
Gross domestic production 300.3 2.2
• Hydropower plant 48.7 10.1
• Thermal plant (gas, oil, coal, biom.) 244.4 0.7
• Geothermal plant 5.4 1.6
• Wind plant 1.8 25.6
Auxiliary service consumption 13.7 0,3Net domestic production 286.6 2.3Import-export balance 45.6 - 10.5Pumping consumption 10.3 - 1.8Total domestic demand 321.9 0.4
Estimated production from true RES: 53 TWh (16.5 % of demand)
D. Barriers to RES/Institutionalobstacles
• Difficulties and delays in the application of the current rulings;
• Discriminatory practices from site of ex monopolist and transmission system operator;
• Long time frame for connections; • Misleading information campaigns/ lack of balanced
information/opposition of local population; • Unpredictability of the local decision making
procedures/delays in processing applications; • Lacking commitment of regional and local authorities.
OpportunitiesThese negatives factors could be offset, at least partially, by
positive factors such as:• Relatively high targets for RES-E and wind power• Favourable combination of certificate prices (around 9,4
€ct/kWh) and sale of RES-E at market price (around 5-6€ct/kWh).
• The opening up of a voluntary market, made more transparent through the implementation of the Guarantee of Origin.
It is however important to be careful about new visions and relyon manageable technologies.
• The hydrogen economy does not represent a viable option forItaly and appears to be another illusionary adventure like thenuclear option……
Possible sites for CO2geological sequestration
Hydrogen Hub Solar Energy based
Hydrogen Hub Fossil Fuel based
H2 Vision
Hydrogen Hub Biomass based
