1 / 33

Update on New Nuclear Plant Development for the Kansas Energy Commission August 15, 2007

Update on New Nuclear Plant Development for the Kansas Energy Commission August 15, 2007. Mary Quillian Director, Business and Environmental Policy Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8013, mmq@nei.org. Overview. Factors driving interest in building new nuclear plants:

orde
Download Presentation

Update on New Nuclear Plant Development for the Kansas Energy Commission August 15, 2007

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. Update on New Nuclear Plant Developmentfor the Kansas Energy CommissionAugust 15, 2007 Mary Quillian Director, Business and Environmental Policy Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8013, mmq@nei.org

  2. Overview • Factors driving interest in building new nuclear plants: • Performance of existing nuclear fleet • Fuel diversity • Public opinion • Environmental Benefits – no GHG emissions • Need for new capacity – particularly new baseload • The next wave of new plants • Who’s developing them? • New licensing process • Used Fuel • Financing • Energy Policy Act of 2005 support for new nuclear • State initiatives that support new plant construction

  3. Sustained Reliability and Productivity U.S. Nuclear Capacity Factor 88.1% in 2000 89.4% in 2001 90.3% in 2002 87.9% in 2003 90.1% in 200489.3% in 2005 89.8% in 2006* Capacity factor (%) Source:Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration * Preliminary for 2006

  4. Output Remains Near Record Levels U.S. Nuclear Generation Billion kilowatt-hours 754 in 2000 769 in 2001 780 in 2002 764 in 2003 789 in 2004 782 in 2005 787 in 2006* Billion kilowatt-hours Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration * Preliminary for 2006

  5. Solid Economic Performance Continues U.S. Nuclear Production Cost 2000: 2.03 cents/kWh 2001: 1.89 cents/kWh 2002: 1.90 cents/kWh 2003: 1.86 cents/kWh 2004: 1.84 cents/kWh 2005: 1.76 cents/kWh 2006: 1.72 cents/kWh 2006 Cents per kilowatt-hour Source: Global Energy Decisions

  6. U.S. Industrial Safety Accident Rate2006 ISAR = Number of accidents resulting in lost work, restricted work, or fatalities per 200,000 worker hours. Electric utilities and manufacturing do not include fatality data. Sources: Nuclear (World Association of Nuclear Operators), Electric Utilities and Manufacturing (2005, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Updated: 4/07

  7. Fuel as a Percentage of Electric Power Production Costs2005 Conversion Fabrication Waste Fund Enrichment Uranium Source: Global Energy Decisions

  8. 80 Favor Oppose 63 60 49 46 40 31 20 Apr- 2007 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 1983 63% Favor Use of Nuclear Energy(Annual Averages) Source: Bisconti Research, Inc., poll conducted March 30 and April 1, 2007

  9. Important for our energy future 80% Renew licenses 81% Prepare to build 71% Definitely build 56% Accept new reactors at nearest plant 66% Five Steps of Support for New Plants Source: Bisconti Research, Inc., poll conducted March 30 and April 1, 2007

  10. U.S. Electric Power Industry CO2 AvoidedMillion Metric Tons2006 Source: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Updated: 4/07

  11. Nuclear Energy Has an Environmental Impact Comparable to Renewables Life Cycle Emissions for Various Electricity Sources Source: “Hydropower-Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits,” Frans H. Koch. International Energy Agency

  12. Emissions Reductions in Perspective • The UNFCCC estimates that the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will generate 1.2 billion tonnes of emission reductions by the end of 2012 • Worldwide, nuclear power avoids the emissions of around 2 billion tonnes of CO2 annually Source: UNFCCC CDM Statistics (http://cdm.unfccc.int/statistics) and International Energy Agency. Emissions avoided by nuclear power are calculated using an average fossil fuel emissions rate that is weighted by the ratio of projected coal and gas generation.

  13. Magnitude of the Climate Challenge Under “business as usual” projections, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels expected to double by 2050 – from 7 GtC/yr to 14 GtC/yr. But stabilizing atmosphere at 500 PPM CO2 requires avoiding this growth and then rapidly shrinking CO2 emissions after 2050. To get to 2050, we would need seven “wedges” of low-carbon energy, each enough to displace 1 GtC/yr. Source: Keystone-NJFF Report June 2007

  14. What is a “Wedge” of Nuclear Capacity? One wedge would require that we roughly triple the size of global nuclear power plant capacity, from 370 GW to 1070 GW, or about 700 net GW. Source: Keystone-NJFF Report June 2007

  15. Kansas • Wolf Creek avoided 9.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2006 • In 2030, a new nuclear plant in SPP could avoid 9.7 million metric tons of CO2 a year All the passenger cars in Kansas emitted 4.5 million metric tons of CO2 in 2005 Source: NEI calculations using EPA and EIA data New nuclear plant size 1,400 MW

  16. SPP Electricity Generation Fuel Shares2006 and 2030 2030* 2006* * Forecasted Source: Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007 Updated: 8/07

  17. U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares 2006* * Preliminary Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

  18. U.S. Electricity Generation Forecast 2005 – 2030, Billion kWh 2030: 5,797 Billion kWh 2005: 4,046 Billion kWh Source: Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

  19. U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares 2030 * Preliminary Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

  20. U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type2006* *Preliminary Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration

  21. Electricity demand in 2030 will be 45% greater than today To maintain current electric fuel supply mix would mean building: Growing Need for Additional Capacity (2006) 50 Nuclear reactors (1,000 MW) 261 Coal-fired plants (600 MW) 279 Natural gas plants (400 MW) 93 Renewables (100 MW) Source: 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy Information Administration

  22. Nuclear Units Under Construction Worldwide Source: International Atomic Energy Agency PRIS database. Updated: 5/07

  23. New Nuclear Plants Under Consideration

  24. Early Site Permit * Construction Acceptance Criteria * Combined License * Construction Operation Design Certification * New NRC Licensing Process(1992 Energy Policy Act) * Public Comment Opportunity

  25. Standardized Plants Benefits • Design -- designed once with one NRC approval documented in a NRC rule • Construction practices • Increased construction efficiencies & schedules with experience • Parts and components • Procurement efficiencies and shared “spare part” inventories • Regulatory interface • More efficient & effective licensing • More efficient use of regulatory resources • Design improvements • One modification package Standardizes modifications (like uprates, physical and procedural improvements) • Operating and maintenance • Procedures • Good practices & training • More efficient outages • Improved equipment reliability Standardization will reduce the cost of building subsequent plants and operating all plants

  26. The “Once Through” Fuel Cycle:The Old View of Used Fuel Management Yucca Mountain Nuclear Plant Used Fuel

  27. Used Fuel Management: An Integrated, Phased Program • Developing advanced technologies to recycle nuclear fuel provides needed flexibility • Sites for recycling logical candidates for interim storage • Allows DOE to meet statutory obligation to remove used fuel from operating plants • Sustains public, political, industry confidence in used fuel management program • DOE grants to 11 volunteer sites for siting studies • Yucca Mountain still needed long term

  28. Used Fuel Management:New Strategic Direction Recycled Nuclear Fuel Advanced Recycling Reactors Nuclear Waste Used Fuel Recycling, Interim Storage Used Fuel Yucca Mountain

  29. Capital Intensive Industries Capital Intensity1 (three-year average) Duke3 AmerenUE PPL Corp. NRG Southern Co. Dominion Entergy Exelon Corp. FP&L TXU Progress Market Capitalization2 (billion dollars) DTE Energy BP SCANA ExxonMobil Constellation Chevron • Capital Intensity = total assets divided by total revenues, 2004 – 2006.. • Market capitalization = number of shares outstanding times share price on 7.3.07.. • Capital Intensity for Duke is for 2006 only.

  30. Energy Policy Act of 2005:Production Tax Credit • $18/MWh for first 6,000 MW of new nuclear capacity • Distributed on a pro rata basis to all plants that: • Submit a COL application to the NRC by Dec. 31, 2008 • Begin construction by Jan. 1, 2014 • Start commercial operation by Jan. 1, 2021 • Production tax credit • Enhances financial attractiveness of project after it is built and in commercial operation • Does not address financing challenges before and during construction

  31. Energy Policy Act of 2005:Standby Support • Federal insurance coverage for delays caused by licensing or litigation • Covers debt service only • Limitations on coverage reduce value • First two $500-million policies: 100% of delay costs, no waiting period for claims • Second four $250-million policies: only 50% of delay costs after 6-month delay

  32. Energy Policy Act of 2005: Loan Guarantee Program • 2005 Energy Policy Act authorizes loan guarantees up to 80 percent of project cost • Should allow nuclear plant developers to • Increase leverage • Reduce financing costs • Reduce cost of electricity from project • Non-recourse to project sponsor’s balance sheet • Final regulations late 2007

  33. State Policies Supporting New Nuclear Construction • Utilities and policymakers in regulated states realize need for fuel and technology diversity • Policies being implemented that: • Value diverse generation portfolio • Limit retroactive reviews of prudence • Allow PUCs to approve new plant costs, set future rate increases before construction • Allow investment recovery during construction

More Related