1 / 73

The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the Commission Energy 2030

The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the Commission Energy 2030. William D’haeseleer, K.U.Leuven Chair CE2030. Objectives. « To provide the scientific and economic analyses necessary to evaluate Belgium’s options with regard to the energy policy up to 2030 »

brigit
Download Presentation

The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to the Commission Energy 2030

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Belgian Nuclear Issue according to theCommission Energy 2030 William D’haeseleer, K.U.Leuven Chair CE2030

  2. Objectives «To provide the scientific and economic analyses necessary to evaluate Belgium’s options with regard to the energy policy up to 2030» …so as to assure an energy system that - guarantees security of supply - is environmentally friendly - at affordable cost for society

  3. Objectives «To provide the scientific and economic analyses necessary to evaluate Belgium’s options with regard to the energy policy up to 2030» …so as to assure an energy system that simultaneously - guarantees security of supply - is environmentally friendly - at affordable cost for society

  4. Scenarios CE2030 Guided byGHG Effectpolicy

  5. Scenarios CE2030 Two philosophies: • 15% and 30% domestic reduction of energy-relatedCO2 in 2030 wrt 1990 (within Belgium w/o emission trading) • European-wide reduction limit of 30% GHG in 2030 wrt 1990, with perfect emission trading scheme for all sectors

  6. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Eight scenarios • 15% and 30% domestic reduction of energy-relatedCO2 in 2030 wrt 1990 •Each time with nuclear phase out on-off • Each time with CCS and without

  7. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results

  8. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results

  9. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results Domestic CO2reduction scenarios transparant, but unrealistic 30% domestic energy-related CO2 reduction is effectively IMPOSSIBLE Realistic domestic Belgian CO2 reductions are ~ …15%...

  10. Domestic Alternative ScenariosResults

  11. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results

  12. Domestic Alternative Scenarios Results

  13. European Alternative Scenarios Two extra scenarios: • European-wide reduction limit of 30% GHG in 2030 wrt 1990, with perfect emission trading scheme for all sectors •Belgian nuclear phase out on-off • No CCS assumed

  14. European Alternative ScenariosResults EU wide cost of Carbon Value (price of emission allowances): - Without nuclear in Belgium ~ 200 €/ton - With nuclear in Belgium ~ 190 €/ton

  15. European Alternative ScenariosResults

  16. European Alternative ScenariosResults Limited reduction of CO2 in case of nuclear phase out means that marginal abatement cost is then much higher than in neighboring countries. With nuclear allowed, a cheap CO2 reduction method is available in Belgium.

  17. European Alternative ScenariosResults Consider same GHG commitment in Belgium as in EU; i.e. 30% reduction in 2030 wrt 1990 • Not all to be reduced domestically, • But responsible for reduction abroad  via emission allowance purchase

  18. European Alternative ScenariosResults Cost for Belgium ~ 15 – 20 G€, or about 6-8% of GDP2000; 4-5% of GDP2030

  19. Beyond the ScenariosReflections Extension of networks: - for HV if off shore ~ 3800 MW ~ 700 M€ - for distribution grid adaptation ~ 2 G€ over 10 yr Subsidies required for renewable expansion: - current 846 MW wind offshore planned ~ 6 G€ - next 3000 MW wind offshore ~ 21 G€ - 2000 MW wind onshore ~ 7 G€ - 1000 MW photovoltaic (PV) ~ 7.2 G€ - 1500 MW Biomass ~ 9.6 G€  50 G€ over 20 years, (or 1/5 GDP2000 or 1/10 GDP2030)

  20. Beyond the ScenariosReflections Security of supply Import dependency on scale ~ 1-2 yr: Up to 88-90% without nuclear in energy terms Up to 95-97% in instantaneous power terms

  21. Beyond the ScenariosReflections on Gas Dependence

  22. Beyond the ScenariosReflections on Gas Dependence Gas Demand for Electricity Generation

  23. Beyond the Scenarios Increasing Electricity Demand

  24. Beyond the Scenarios Needed Investments for Electricity Generation

  25. Beyond the Scenarios

  26. Beyond the Scenarios

  27. Beyond the Scenarios

  28. Nuclear Phase Out ?

  29. The Nuclear Issue in Belgium • The phase out law • Cost of a nuclear phase out • Operational extension of current NPPs • New nuclear power plants • Nuclear liability

  30. Nuclear Issue in Belgium - Intro Often four elements are “introduced” together: • “Nuclear technology is unacceptable (safety, waste,…)” • “Operator NPPS makes windfall profits with depreciated NPPs” • “The liberalized market ‘does not function’ ” • “All the profits of EBL go to Paris”

  31. Nuclear Issue in Belgium - Intro Often four elements are “introduced” together: • “Nuclear technology is unacceptable (safety, waste,…)” • “Operator NPPS makes windfall profits with depreciated NPPs” • “The liberalized market ‘does not function’ ” • “All the profits of EBL go to Paris” Items are independent of each other !

  32. 1. Nuclear phase out law The facts ► Consequence of political deal summer 2000 ► Voted January 2003, Published Feb 28 2003 ► Ignores advice of the AMPERE Commission ► No attempt to evaluate consequences ► Explanatory Memorandum: - full with “incorrect statements” - recognizes conflict with post-Kyoto: Triptych approach ► Exceptionality Clause: “force majeure” for SoS

  33. 1. Nuclear phase out law Interpretation ► if nuclear power is unacceptable, why continue for > 20 y? → No rational basis ! ► No such thing as technical life time of systems; only economic life time  “operational life” ► Nuclear phase out law can be changed or mitigated ► But nuclear phase out law has managed to create uncertainty for future nuclear investments

  34. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out - Phasing out nuclear power entails to throwing away a cheap means to reduce CO2

  35. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Cost for Belgium ~ 15000 – 20000 M€, or about 6-8% of GDP2000; 4-5% of GDP2030

  36. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out • Phasing out nuclear power entails to throwing away a cheap means to reduce CO2 • Phasing out nuclear power will lead to higher electricity prices

  37. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out

  38. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out • Phasing out nuclear power entails to throwing away a cheap means to reduce CO2 • Phasing out nuclear power will lead to higher electricity prices • Phasing out nuclear power gives up concession fee to help support renewable sources

  39. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out • Phasing out nuclear power entails to throwing away a cheap means to reduce CO2 • Phasing out nuclear power will lead to higher electricity prices • Phasing out nuclear power gives up concession fee to help support renewable sources • Phasing out nuclear power increases energy import dependency, with extra cost

  40. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out • Postponing nuclear phase out allows growth of decommissioning fund by ~ 1 G€

  41. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out

  42. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out • Postponing nuclear phase out allows growth of decommissioning fund by ~ 1 G€ • Postponing nuclear phase out allows negotiations with GdF/Suez to keep certain aspects of electricity generation Belgian

  43. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Compare to EU Commission Proposal ● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020

  44. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Compare to EU Commission Proposal ● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020 ● For ETS sectors (incl power sector): ► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990) ►irrespective of country / location / type ►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020

  45. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Compare to EU Commission Proposal ● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020 ● For ETS sectors (incl power sector): ► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990) ►irrespective of country / location / type ►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020 ● Other sectors, for B: -15% GHG compared to 2005

  46. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Compare to EU Commission Proposal ● 20-20-20 (10) by 2020 ● For ETS sectors (incl power sector): ► -21% CO2 compared to 2005 (~ 26% compared to 1990) ►irrespective of country / location / type ►all allowances to be auctioned by 2020 ● Other sectors, for B: -15% GHG compared to 2005 ● RES obligation B: 13% of final energy demand by 2020; ~ 25% electricity demand

  47. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out Compare to EU Commission Proposal The EU targets are very stringent for Belgium! When “extrapolated” to 2030, these targets are not too different from the CE2030 targets: - no burden sharing or Triptych approach for power sector ! - other sectors -15% domestically  will require drastic reduction in energy demand RES: very demanding: support will be “expensive”

  48. 2. Cost of Nuclear Phase Out  Nuc Phase Out seems very expensive; CE2030 recommends to “reconsider” nuclear issue

  49. 3. Operational Extension of Current NPPs • Operational extension same safety culture: • under strict safety rules & ALARA principles; • appropriate regulatory supervision; • maintenance according to intl standards & practices • Waste management same rules: • volume minimization; • appropriate waste treatment; • continue R&D for final disposal • keep internalizing cost

  50. 3. Operational Extension of Current NPPs • Proliferation issue same strict rules safeguards: • Supervised by IAEA, Euratom, FANC • Terrorism protection • Abide by latest “security” rules • NPPs are impact resistant buildings

More Related