720 likes | 881 Views
The Nuclear Renaissance: A Resurgence of Nuclear Energy. Jim Reinsch President, Bechtel Nuclear Power Board of Directors, Nuclear Energy Institute President-Elect, American Nuclear Society. 6987-2/05-Michigan- 1. 6987-2/05-Michigan- 1. Acknowlegements. Steve L. Stamm, P.E.
E N D
The NuclearRenaissance: A Resurgence of Nuclear Energy Jim Reinsch President, Bechtel Nuclear Power Board of Directors, Nuclear Energy Institute President-Elect, American Nuclear Society 6987-2/05-Michigan-1 6987-2/05-Michigan-1
Acknowlegements Steve L. Stamm, P.E. Nuclear Business Manager Stone & Webster Power Division
Outline • ANS representation: • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Shaw Stone & Webster • Framatome ANP • Seabrook Station • University of Massachusetts, Lowell • Resurgence of Nuclear Energy • Role of American Nuclear Society
Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Ranked 5th by U.S. News and World Report • 10,000 students • 900 faculty • 32 majors • 5 schools • Milestones: • Penicillin • Vitamin A
Shaw Group formed in 1987 One of Fortune's Top 500 companies Stone & Webster foundedin 1889 18,000 employees Provides multi-services Engineering Design Construction Maintenance Shaw Stone & Webster
Seabrook Station • Majority owner— Florida Power and Light (FPL) • C.O.— August 1990 • 1,161 MW • Largest reactor in New England • Provides about 7 % of region’s electricity
University of Massachusetts, Lowell • Founded in 1894 • Member of the University of Massachusetts system, 1991 • 12,000 students • $300 million in annual research • One of the 50 best universities in the world by Times of London
Jointly-owned subsidiary with AREVA and Siemens World leader in: Engineering design and construction of nuclear power plants and research reactors Modernization, maintenance and repair services Component manufacturing Supply of nuclear fuel Manufacturing facilities in over 40 countries Framatome ANP
Resurgence of Nuclear Energy 6987-2/05-Michigan-9
World View • Global electricity demand to increase 50% by 2025 • 1.6%/yr for industrial world • 3.6%/yr for developing world Demand Trillion kWh 1850 1950 1990 2000 2050 2100 Year
Global Average Temperature 58 °F Cause of Disruption • Emissions from CO2 from fossil fuel • Fossil fuel • 80% of world’s energy • 80% of new capacity brought on line in 2003 57 °F Nuclear • Limits greenhouse gas emissions 56 °F 1880 1894 1908 1922 1936 1950 1964 1978 1992 1999 5-year surface annual mean Source: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Global Emissions and Atmospheric Concentration of CO2 7000 400 Atmospheric concentrations measured directly 5000 350 Atmospheric concentrations derived from ice cores Emissions (MMTC) Atmospheric Concentration (ppm) 3000 300 1000 Emissions 250 EPRI Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 1790 1815 1840 1865 1890 1915 1940 1975 1990 Environment
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature Rise Environment 2 x CO2 of Existing Levels 4 x CO2 of Existing Levels EPRI 2100 2030
Nuclear Drivers • Why Nuclear: • Safe • Proven performance • Affordable • Energy security/energy independence • Emission free • Abundant fuel and stable prices
World View • World nuclear generation sets record in 2004 • 383,629 MW • 2,696 MMWh • 3.7% increase • Led by: • Record setting performance • U.S. • Sweden • Restart of units in: • Japan • Canada • Commissioning of new units • South Korea • Ukraine
World View • 440 nuclear power plants • 16% of world’s electricity • Displaces 2 billion metric tons of CO2
The Renaissance Begins 5 Other 8 Korea 30 Projects Underway in 2004 3 Russia 3 China 8 Europe 3 Japan
NuclearOverview: Pacific Basin
Pacific Basin • Asia fastest growing market • East and South Asia • 100 plants in operation • 20 under construction • 40 to 60 planned • Represents 36% of the world’s new capacity growth
Pacific Ocean Indian Ocean Pacific Basin • Greatest growth • China • Japan • South Korea • India 6987-2/05-Michigan-20
Quick Facts • World’s largest population • China = 1.3 billion • U.S. = 0.3 billion • Second largest energy consumer • U.S. = 25% of world total • China = 10% of world total
Quick Facts • 2003 • 10% increase in generation capacity • 17% increase in demand • 15,000 MW shortage • 2004 • 9% increase in generation capacity • 16% increase in demand • 30,000 MW shortage
Energy Portfolio 2%Nuclear Total ElectricalGeneration Hydro Coal
Operation Under Construction Planning China’s Plan Harbin WaFangDian6x1000MW PWR Beijing HaiYang6x1000MW PWR TianWan6x1000MW VVER Qinshan I1x300MW PWR Qinshan II2x600MW PWR Chengdu Qinshan III2x665MW HWR Shanghai Qinshan IV 2x1000MW PWR Sanmen 6x1000MW PWR Fuzhou HuiAn 6x1000MW PWR Shenzhen Daya Bay2x944MW PWR LingAo 2x950MW PWR Hong Kong LingDong2x1000MW PWR YangJiang 6x1000MW PWR
Near-Term Plan • PWR technology selected • National Nuclear Steering Committee formed • National Development and Reforming Commission (NDRC) has significant role
Path Forward • Nuclear power to be expanded • 6,600 MW to 40,000 MW by 2020 • Near-term construction • 4 replication units • 4 Generation III+ units • 2 at Sanmen • 2 at Yangjiang
Current Invitation to Bid (ITB) Heilongjiang Sea of Japan RUSSIA JAPAN Jilin Liaoning NORTH KOREA Beijing MONGOLIA SOUTH KOREA Yellow Sea Hebei Shandong Inner Mongolia Shanxi Jiangsu Sanmen Nuclear Plant Xinjiang Shanghai Shaanxi Henan Anhui Gansu China Zhejiang Hubei Qinghai Jiangxi Fujian Sichuan Hunan Taiwan Tibet Guangdong Yangjiang Nuclear Plant Guizhou Hong Kong Guangxi Yunnan BHUTAN NEPAL VIETNAM South China Sea Hainan BURMA INDIA LAOS
Status of ITB • ITB issued September 28, 2004 • PWR technology • Westinghouse • AREVA • Atomstroyexport • Construction award December 2005
Westinghouse – AP 1000 • Passive safety systems permit simplification and improve safety • Modularization reduces construction to 36 months • NRC design certification provides regulatory certainty: • AP 600 — December 1999 • AP 1000 — August 2005 Westinghouse
AREVA/Framatome ANP — EPR • Four loop RCS design • Four train safety systems • In-containment borated water storage • RCS depressurization system • Separate buildings for safety trains • Advanced “cockpit” control room • 48 months from first concrete to CO
Atomstroyexport (Russian)VVER-1000 • “Evolutionary” design incorporating safety improvements • Standardization based on components that performed well on earlier plants (VVER-440) • Four loop RCS design • Horizontal steam generators • Redesigned fuel assemblies
World Reactor Technologies Gen III+ Gen IV Today’s Designs Future Designs 6926-1/05-Purdue-33
Future Designs • Generation IV advanced nuclear reactors (ARS) • Six candidates: • Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) • Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) • Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) • Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) • Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) • Supercritical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR) December 2002 http://nuclear.gov/nerac/FinalRoadmapforNERACReview.pdf
Future Designs — Generation IV - ARS • Technology • Top priority â Next Generation Nuclear Plant • High temperature • Passive safety • Improved economics • Demonstrates hydrogen production • High efficiency direct-cycle electricity production • Nonproliferation • Technology suppliers • PBMR (Pty) Ltd. â Pebble Bed (PBMR) • AREVA/Framatome ANP â ANTARES • General Atomics â GT-MHR
Future Designs —Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) • PBMR (Pty) Ltd. — Pebble Bed Modular Reactor • High temperature (900 °C) helium-cooled reactor • TRISO-coated particle fuel in spherical fuel elements • On-line refueling • Direct cycle gas turbine • Inherent passive safety design
Future Designs — NGNP • AREVA/Framatome ANP — ANTARES design • Prismatic core • Low cost • Maximum core design flexibility • Minimum core design uncertainty • Indirect cycle • Simplified design • Innovative CCGT-based power generation system • Developed with MHI and confirmed by EdF • Maximizes use of existing technology • Combined Brayton and Rankine cycles give high efficiency • Readily adaptable to H2 production
Future Designs — NGNP • General Atomics — Gas Turbine — Modular HeliumReactor (GT-MHR) • Helium cooled reactor • Nonradioactive • High heat capacity • Gas turbine • Brayton cycle vs. steam cycle • High efficiency ~ 50% • Modern gas turbine technology • Ceramic fuel particles • High temperature capability > 1600 °C • Stable graphite core/moderator • High fuel burnup capability • High proliferation resistance
Today’s Design — Generation III+ Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRs) • Simplified design • Passive systems to enhance safety and reduce cost • Standardized designs based on modularization producing shorter construction schedules • Enhanced resistance to proliferation
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • General Electric âESBWR âABWR+ • BNFL/Westinghouse â AP 1000 • Atomic Energy Canada Limited â ACR-700 (AECL) • AREVA/ â EPR Framatome âSWR 1000 6900-12/04-40
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • General Electric — ESBWR • Simplified the design • Less equipment and buildings • Shorter construction times • Reduced operation and maintenance costs • Improved plant performance and safety • Gives operational flexibility • Easier to get regulatory approval • Designed to U.S. and European requirements
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • Westinghouse — AP 1000 • Passive safety systems permit simplification and improve safety • Modularization reduces construction to 36 months • NRC design certification provides regulatory certainty: • AP 600 — December 1999 • AP 1000 — August 2005 Westinghouse
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) — ACR-700 • Evolution of CANDU 6 design (Qinshan) • Safe, economical design • 40 months from first concrete to fuel load for 1st unit • Currently in NRC pre-application review
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • AREVA/Framatome ANP — EPR • Four loop RCS design • Four train safety systems • In-containment borated water storage • RCS depressurization system • Separate buildings for safety trains • Advanced “cockpit” control room • 48 months from first concrete to CO
Today’s Design — Generation III+ ALWR • AREVA/Framatome ANP — SWR 1000 • Improved safety margin • Improved availability • Uses existing technology • Reduced construction time • 60-year service life • European utility involvement
U.S. Nuclear Energy • Quick facts • 103 nuclear plants • 20% of the nation’s electricity • Displaces 680 million metric tons of CO2 • Equivalent to 131 million passengercars
U.S. Nuclear Drivers • Safe • Proven nuclear plant performance • Cost effective • Affordable • Energy security/energy independence • Provides base load generation/grid stability • Emission free
Proven Performance 90.7% Source: Energy Information Administration/Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Affordable ($ per MWh) Source: University of Chicago 6987-2/05-Michigan-50