the future of nuclear energy for electricity generation in belgium
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 60

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


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium. W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute. Nuclear Fuel 57,8%. Gaseous fuel 26,8%. Solid fuels 11,5%. Hydraulic 1,8%.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium' - nathaniel-angelo


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the future of nuclear energy for electricity generation in belgium

The Future of Nuclear EnergyforElectricity Generation in Belgium

W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute

relative proportion energy basket electricity generation in belgium
Nuclear Fuel 57,8%

Gaseous fuel 26,8%

Solid fuels 11,5%

Hydraulic 1,8%

Others 1,1%

Liquid fuels 1%

Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity Generation in Belgium
orders of magnitude belgian electricity system 2000
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

present situation nuclear energy in belgium
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

cogeneration potential in belgium
Cogeneration potential in Belgium
  • Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE)
        • PPS > 5 % w.r.t. separate generation
        • Only Pe > 85 kW
        • No district heating
  • Energetic potential ~ 4000 MWe + 500 MWeeconomic potential ~ 2700 MWe+ 400 MWe

market potential ~ 2000 MWe+ 300 MWe

  • Remaining mkt potential ~ 1000 MWe+ 500 MWe
renewable energy potential solar pv
Renewable EnergyPotential Solar PV
  • Theoretically: 3000 TWh/a at 10% efficiency
  • ~ 100 km2 via roofs, streets, ...

=> 10 – 20 TWh/a technical pot

=> 7.6 GW installed

  • Problem: day/night cycle; seasons
renewable energy potential wind on shore
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; on shore
  • Theoretical potential

- 340 TWh/a total- 190 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 50 TWh/a > 6 m/s

  • 5% surface:- 16 TWh/a total technical- 9.5 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 2.5 TWh/a > 6 m/s
renewable energy potential wind on shore1
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; on shore
  • Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Van Leuven)
  • Prognosis Commission Ampere: 1 à 2 TWh
renewable energy potential wind off shore
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; off shore
  • ± 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast
  • ± 1000 MW installed
  • ± 3 TWh
renewable energy hydro
Renewable EnergyHydro
  • Theoretical potential ± 0.6 TWh/a
  • Technical potential ± 0.4 TWh/a
  • Already 0.3 TWh in use
renewable energy generation cost
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
renewable energy total technical potential
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
nuclear power
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
nuclear power cont d
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))

nuclear power cont d new power stations cont d
Nuclear power; contdNew 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

nuclear power cont d new power stations cont d1
Nuclear power; contdNew power stations; contd
  • Presently “only” expansion in Far East

- transfer of know how West  East

- later, we’ll import from Japan!

nuclear power cont d1
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

nuclear power cont d existing nuclear plants cont d
Nuclear power; contdExisting 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

nuclear power cont d existing nuclear plants cont d1
Nuclear power; contdExisting 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

nuclear power cont d2
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 R&D nuclear fusion research

- unexhaustible and “clean” source

- given political will, almost certain to succeed

climate and human activity
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

climate and human activity1
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 > 0.66 - 0.90) to have been

due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

slide27
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
climate and human activity2
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

slide29
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 < 20 % CO2 due to combustion

European average ~ 30 %

emission scenarios promix
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

promix simulation co 2 evolution 1998 2012
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

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

emission scenarios reversed scenario
Emission scenariosReversed scenario

What would have been the CO2 emissions

in Belgium

if we never had any nuclear electricity generation?

slide33
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, andMARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power
nuclear phase out a wise decision
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision state of affairs march 6 2002 cont d
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision state of affairs march 6 2002 cont d1
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision problems with planned phase out
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision problems with planned phase out cont d
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!

slide40
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

promix simulation co 2 evolution 1998 20121
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

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

slide42
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, andMARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power
back of envelope calculation ghg versus nuclear phase out
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!

back of envelope calculation ghg versus nuclear phase out cont d
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

post ampere markal hypotheses
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)
scenario 1 no kyoto constraint no nuclear phase out
2010

2020

2030

Demand ELEC: 84 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 19 TWh

Cogeneration: 17 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: - 0.1% of GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 99 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 9 TWh

Gas: 10 TWh

Cogeneration: 19 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: - 0.7% of GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 113 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 33 TWh

Gas: 1 TWh

Cogeneration: 19 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.5% of GDP 2000

Scenario 1No Kyoto constraint; no nuclear phase out
scenario 2 no kyoto constraint nuclear phase out
2010

2020

2030

Demand ELEC: 84 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 20 TWh

Cogeneration: 17 TWh

Renewables: 1TWh

Cost: -0.1% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 88 TWh

Nuclear 30 TWh

Coal: 16 TWh

Gas: 23 TWh

Cogeneration: 19 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.7% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 106 TWh

Nuclear 4 TWh

Coal: 74 TWh

Gas: 9 TWh

Cogeneration: 19 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.4% van GDP 2000

Scenario 2No Kyoto constraint; nuclear phase out
scenario 3 kyoto nuclear phase out
2010

2020

2030

Demand ELEC: 81 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 17 TWh

Cogeneration: 17 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.3% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 86 TWh

Nuclear 30 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 27 TWh

Cogeneration: 20 TWh

Renewables: 5 TWh

Cost: 0.1% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 98 TWh

Nuclear 4 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 62 TWh

Cogeneration: 22 TWh

Renewables: 5 TWh

Cost: 2.7% van GDP 2000

Scenario 3Kyoto; nuclear phase out
scenario 4 kyoto no nuclear phase out
2010

2020

2030

Demand ELEC: 82 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 17 TWh

Cogeneration: 17 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.3% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 95 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 12 TWh

Cogeneration: 18 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.4% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 100 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 11 TWh

Cogeneration: 21 TWh

Renewables: 5 TWh

Cost: 0.6% van GDP 2000

Scenario 4Kyoto; no nuclear phase out
nuclear phase out a wise decision problems with planned phase out cont d1
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision problems with planned phase out cont d2
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

nuclear phase out a wise decision conclusion
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)

nuclear phase out a wise decision conclusion cont d
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Conclusion; contd

Because of major uncertainties,

deciding now to automatically close NPP’s 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

general conclusion
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!

slide60
Cost of electricity production by technologies producing only electricity in 2010 in constant 2000 BEF/kWhe
ad