1 / 60

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium

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%.

judith-lynn
Download Presentation

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium

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 Future of Nuclear EnergyforElectricity Generation in Belgium W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute

  2. 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

  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 > 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; on shore • Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Van Leuven) • Prognosis Commission Ampere: 1 à 2 TWh

  11. Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; off shore • ± 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast • ± 1000 MW installed • ± 3 TWh

  12. Renewable EnergyHydro • Theoretical potential ± 0.6 TWh/a • Technical potential ± 0.4 TWh/a • Already 0.3 TWh in use

  13. 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

  14. 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

  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; 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

  18. Nuclear power; contdNew power stations; contd • Presently “only” expansion in Far East - transfer of know how West  East - later, we’ll 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; 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

  21. 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

  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 R&D nuclear fusion research - unexhaustible and “clean” source - given political will, almost certain to succeed

  23. CO2 emissionsdue to electricity generation

  24. 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

  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 > 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 < 20 % CO2 due to combustion European average ~ 30 %

  30. 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

  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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

  32. Emission scenariosReversed scenario What would have been the CO2 emissions in Belgium if we never had any nuclear electricity generation?

  33. Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, andMARKAL 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

  42. Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, andMARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power

  43. 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!

  44. 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

  45. 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)

  46. 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

  47. 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

  48. 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

More Related